Form vs function

[holewski]

Hi guys and gals

Im an industrial design student studying at Hertfordshire university im in my final year and its finally time to start writing my dreaded dissertation.
my question for my dissertation is
Form vs. function:
How has this changed in furniture design since the 1960s?


I think it has changed due to new materials new techniques. (Cheap manufacturing process) people are more status orientated than they were back in the 1960s. I believe people will now buy furniture on aesthetics rather than functionality. (I have to say I recently bought a Panton chair. I bought the chair on purely aesthetical reasons I still would have used the chair even if it was uncomfortable. I was pleasantly surprised how comfortable it is!!)
I have started at the beginning by looking at Eames and there plywood single shell experimentations then I have looked at the Polyprop chair and the awesome Monobloc garden chair!!

Does anyone else have any different views? Have I missed out anything out
am I barking up the wrong tree????

I will be extremely grateful for any posts

thanks for your time

Joe Holewski

[PrintDriver]

Furniture is a matter of taste and budget.
Having just recently experienced an IKEA store, there's a lot to be said for the tasteful, low cost market. I've never been a proponent of looks over comfort. And I don't particularly care what the Joneses have in their living room either. LOL! If it's comfortable, looks good within the current decor (or is worth changing the decor to match the new look) and is in the price range I have targeted, then I'd buy it.

As far as designers, can't help you there.

[Broacher]

The human form hasn't changed... just got super-sized. We're fatter and older though. And more out of shape. But that doesn't explain the demise of the La-Z-Boy recliner (America's greatest gift to the world of living room furniture design).

Function has changed. So have dwellings.

The other ingredient to consider is money.

[holewski]

thanks very much i hadnt considered cost as an aspect of cost

[Broacher]

I was referring to the money found between and beneath furniture cushions.

[Ned]

Yes, the bigger the cushions, the more money to be lost. Recliners will catch a lot more because of their more pro-active money collecting action.

[holewski]

another valid point! not sure it holds much weight for my dissertation!!;)

[joshil3]

Yes, the bigger the cushions, the more money to be lost. Recliners will catch a lot more because of their more pro-active money collecting action.

The recliner is actually a slot machine in disguise: note that arm you pull on the side of the chair. The further you pull on it, the more change you lose.:D

[SurfPark]

I've always believed that form followed fuction. The piece has to serve its purpose before looking pretty. Its only now that the retailers are realizing the power of design in the market place. Target and IKEA are leaders in this trend. They're making products anyway, and by designing for the fuction they're creating brands that are trusted and useful.

I don't know how the design work of the 60's is that different from today. We obviously have quicker and more accurate methods to design today. We also have more fabric choices. There is a change in culture as well...the people of the 1960's were typically in a rebellion of a culture. Today we don't rebel, but "express" oursevles through design.

[Liquid Layers]

If you don't know who Karim Rashid is already, then read this.

http://www.booknoise.net/johnseabrook/stories/design/rashid/index.html

He spoke at my school a couple months ago, and I think he has some really relevant points on this topic. I don't agree with everything he says; personally I think he takes futurism way too far. I believe that we will always have books made of paper and film cameras no matter how fast convenient and cheap digital technology gets.