Blog Assignment 3: selected posts

from Ella Kroch:

Beauty and Utility

Jones argues in The Grammar of Ornament (1856) that the primary function of design should be the purpose and that decoration should be of secondary importance. This idea came about in the late 19^thCentury after the time of the Industrial Revolution which brought about a massive social, political and economic shift to society. With the machine age came a massive surge in production with no rules to adhere to and the birth of the middle class, a class very keen to mimic the wealthy.

Jones’ idea reflects the attitudes of the reformists, a group of upper class men who wanted to re-define the separation between themselves and the lower classes and bring a sense of regularity to the design world. These influential and powerful men devised a set of design principles and believed that unnecessary embellishment of design should be avoided, leaving design to be functional and simple. The image pictured above features a lamp which has been made to resemble a tree. It is an example of decoration being constructed and is an object which would have been opposed by Jones and other reformists. Jones was of the opinion that representation should not be entirely realistic but rather of an abstract nature in order to keep the design ‘pure’. This new style was different to popular culture and was an acquired taste intended to re affirm the difference from the upper class to that of the general public.

To a certain degree I agree with Jones’ idea, function should most definitely be of paramount importance. There is no point having a beautifully decorated object which does not serve it’s purpose. However, the principles of design which these men developed did not not seem entirely clear. Pugin, a designer who played a crucial part in the design reform, did not adhere to these set of very restricting ground rules himself. The idea that decoration should not be constructed is valuable in ensuring the function of an object is not forgotten due to unnecessary decoration, however I find these construction laws to be somewhat creatively suppressive and misleading.

From Max O'Brien: 

The Beauty and Utility in Design

In Owen Jones’ 1865 publication of The Grammar of Ornament, he argues that design decisions should be made with the intention of adhering to function, with decoration acting as merely an aesthetic compliment to the construction of an object. In contrast, he states that design should not focus on a purely ornamental role where the sacrifice of an object’s intended purpose is commonplace.

There are some aspects of Jones’ argument that I can agree to, but to leave ornamentation out as an outlier rather than an influential role in the design process can lead to a piece of design that may function, but forgets the humanity that needs to be achieved with design in order for people to connect with and enjoy it. While rules are a good starting point, their intention is for them to be broken as so many influential designers of the past and present continue to engage in. But at the same time, a design should never be over indulged in such emotive constrictions or else as A.W.N. Pugin would say, the design would become selfish.

Only through this act of experimentation can great design be achieved as balance is a purely subjected view that can only be measured by the combination of emotion and logic. Harmony must exist in both the beauty and utility of a design, where the decoration and function of a design work together to succeed. Examples of these principles can be exhibited in the work of David Trubridge (pictured above), where beauty can be found in the intricate construction, simple function and flowing aesthetic of his designs.

from Zak Challies:

In The Grammar of Ornament (1856) Owen Jones argued that,“Construction should be decorated. Decoration should never be purposely constructed.”

I disagree with Jones’ statement. While the statement may have been relative in an historical context, in contemporary design, art and architecture construction has evolved to become an artistically driven endeavour. The very construction of the building is  the decoration and therefore is purposely constructed. And on the other hand a building that has been decorated post-construction becomes “tacky” in contemporary society, as if the pieces of ornament have just been thrown on at the last minute.

Take the Wellington Supreme Court for example. A piece of classically styled architecture has been ruined (in the eyes of much of the public) by the addition of the wrought iron patterned ornament that has seemingly just been tacked on to the outside. As an opposing example I offer the Guggenheim Museum located in Manhattan. As an exemplary piece of modern architecture, this building was constructed as a piece of art, a“decoration constructed” as it were.

Jones’ statement does not consider the idea of purpose. Often post-construction decoration can hinder the purpose of a design, whereas constructed decoration, if constructed with a purpose in mind, can still serve its purpose adequately. On one point I do agree with Jones; the idea that decoration should not be constructed without purpose or function. These should be foremost in the mind of a designer. However this does not mean that the purpose and function of a construction cannot be the decoration. In this respect I believe Contemporary design is effective as there is an understanding that form and function can be beauty too.