Which are you?
Do you prefer style over substance? Or are you a practical over pretty kind of person?
I personally cannot understand why funcionality should ever be secondary to how stylish something can be. Function is far and away of primary importance, without it things are useless wastes of time. Doesn’t seem to stop designers from creating vapid crap, though.
If I grasp the intent of the OP, I guess I favor functionality over style, but, IMO, the proper function of things dictates their appearance and that makes the appearance pleasant to beautiful.
The paragon of this effect, for me, is Japanese art. Music, painting, poetry, crafts, architecture, gardening, cuisine, name it. Somehow the Japanese have managed to capture the spirit of things in their ways of making artifacts.
As a case in point, I can think of nothing more elegant than the Samurai sword.
Art generally doesn’t have a practical function, it’s meant to be admired purely for its design only, so really that doesn’t count in my argument.
And I’m certainly not saying that things shouldn’t look attractive.
But if the form overrides the finction, if you can’t pour the coffee from the pot until it is tipped 90 degrees, if you can’t open the door unless your fingers are clean and all fingers and thumbs are operational, if you can’t find the petrol cap on your rental car because it’s hidden from view, then that is a failure of design.
Obviously, ideal objects would marry both from inception. I guess the question is why they don’t.
I have redesigned many things around the office (forms, etc.) merely because while they were functional (contained all necessary data), they looked like they were slapped together in five minutes by someone that didn’t give a damn.
Of course form follows function for me. It first must work, then it must look nice. Luckily, there seems to be many a simple design that still works great.
My case in points are generally IKEA furniture. Man, that stuff rocks. I don’t know if 'Mericans quite grasp the concept of IKEA because of the larger living space available (my apartment in Colorado during school was larger than the one I live in now with a wife and kid). But if you look at the IKEA catalogues, you’ll notice that the pictures are 90% in fairly small living areas. They design things to make life easier for apartment dwellers, plus it looks good to boot. Functionality for people who most likely will live in the same apartment (condo, flat) for the rest of their lives (as many Euros will do). It’s great stuff, and the functionality is even in the building of the things. I’ve just put together 4 wardrobes, 2 dressers, 1 office unit, 1 bookcase and a dining room set of a table and 4 chairs. Not one screw was missing, not one thing went wrong. Great stuff.
-Tcat
There is no real reason why both form and function cannot exist together in any design.
Function is definitely more important in objects that have a specific use - what good is a bottle opener / corkscrew if it looks fantastic but cannot actually open a bottle?
Form is arguably more important in aesthetic pieces, like sculpture or painting.
Functionality in building design is a more difficult concept - it should be a paramount concern how the spaces will be utilised by the occupants. But strict adherence to such a rule will lead to a standardised approach to construction and all building could end up having the same bare and uninspired appearance and form. This is generally not an approach to design with completely desirable outcomes.
Function should always come first, followed very closely by form. Beautiful or well-designed objects are a joy to use, but should actually do the job they’re intended for. Best of all are those items where utility and beauty merge seamlessly. Such items are efficient at what they do, are easy to use, and look great while doing it.
My vote for the perfect marriage of form and function goes to Apple’s ipod.
My life is largely devoted to ensuring that it is filled with both form and function. As a technical person, I insist upon functionality. As an artist, I refuse to do without form. There is no particular reason why anything from hand tools to blankets cannot manifest both. Good design usually embraces this.
An anecdote: Ettore Bugatti (the famous Italian car designer) was famous for making his engine outtakes look like seashells and other similarly decorative elements. When asked about form following function, he loudly stated;
“Function follows form!”
Considering that his cars set speed records, plus won all sorts of races and that the Bugatti Royale is the most valuable car in the entire world, he may have been onto something.
Did anyone else think this was going to be about visual basic?