When Bob McCaffrey, a designer, came in to speak to us, I initially thought I wasn’t very moved by anything he had to say and his style didn’t particularly appeal to me, but looking back on the notes I took, apparently I was wrong!
A topic I have been thinking a lot on lately is where functionality really fits into design. Is it essential? If so, then what is design without functionality? Is it bad? Or is it art? Is anything truly without function? Just a few of the questions I’ve been wrestling with. And as it turns out, I discovered some enlightenment in the thoughts of Bob McCaffrey!
One of McCaffrey’s inspirations was Charles Rennie Mackintosh. At GSA we often take Mackintosh for granted, but when you actually study his work you find intricate, well thought out, user centred and beautiful designs! He never did anything without a reason. He was never merely interested in aestheticism. On the Garnethill Mackintosh building, the window supports were decorative, but they were also functional, there was specific space left in anticipation of the window cleaners that would be necessary! Some of his iconic dining chairs were also designed to separate the space within a room, they weren’t just needlessly tall for pure aesthetic reasons, but so that when sitting down for dinner you felt as though you were in a private space. The user was always at the heart of Mackintosh’s work.
“A chair is only a chair when you’re sitting in it. It only becomes something when you’re using it… Design is for people. It won’t work if people aren’t engaging with and using your designs” —Bob McCaffrey
In this particular example it does beg the question; how do you define a chair? You may say it’s something you can sit on, but you can’t say it must be comfortable, you also can’t say it must be made out of wood. The absolute is that it must be sat on. Everything else will depend on the function intended for the chair.
I’d like to take a leaf from Mackintosh’s book here and just say that good design must always be well reasoned. Nothing should be done just for the sake of it, but rather, always to fulfil a specific function. The trouble with “function” is that it’s yet another “difficult to define” aspect within design. I would say that everything has a function, whether or not you consciously give it one. Let’s take a piece of art, say a painting. It might not be “used” in the conventional sense of the word, but it still has a function, right? It gives enjoyment and satisfaction to the artist, and in turn enjoyment to the viewers of the art. (But the artist probably didn’t say to himself, I want to design a painting that in 100 years time will give great enjoyment to art connoisseurs all over the world. And yet, many paintings fulfil this function.) So where does the line between art and design exist? It’s certainly a faint and fine one.
There is definitely a difference between art and design, however, and I would say that design must be “used” in a physical way, there should almost always be an element of tactile human interaction (though I’m sure there are exceptions to this rule). This therefore, does not mean that “art” has not been designed, and it’s still perfectly capable of being considered in just as calculating and analytical way as you might think of “design”, but what it does mean is that art and design’s functions are fundamentally different. Perhaps that “art” is to be looked at and “design” is to be used?
Let’s go back to the example of a chair. What happens when a chair has been designed, but no one sits on it? Well based on what I’ve said above, bringing this situation to it’s logical conclusion would suggest that the chair is no longer a chair, but now a piece of art. If you thought you were designing it to be sat on, then I’d say it’s badly designed because it’s not fulfilling it’s function, right? But if you designed it to be looked at and enjoyed, and yet it has the form of a chair, then yes, it is good design because it’s fulfilling it’s function. I would just have one thing to say to you though: Please, stop calling it a chair. (I’m looking at you Newson. You might recall I shared some sassy thoughts on his Lockheed Lounge a couple weeks ago).
I suppose the only conclusion I can make then, is that good design will always be relative to it’s purpose, to it’s individual function and it’s reason for being. Not particularly conclusive if I’m honest, but I suppose it wouldn’t be right to shove all chairs in one tiny restrictive box.
stormborns
blakekathryn
ellievsbear
theartofmadeline
baratheonpilled
