I've come to believe that my mind has a mind of its own. This is just something I caught it thinking about...
A while back over at LinkedIn Dutch designer André van der Saag asked this question:
Great designers often say that form follows function. What happens when function follows form?
On first scan this looks like one of those pseudo-Zen conundrums people often present at parties, usually around the time the wine starts running low. But for some reason I couldn't quite dismiss it, so of course I started thinking about it and oddly enough came to see it not only as a legitimate question, but one with a startlingly simple answer.
What happens when function follows form? Invention.
A not-so-obvious connection, for sure, so let me explain how I got there. Please bear with me -- I've tried to be as linear as I can, but you know how these things can turn on you.
OK. Here we go. The idea that form follows function is a loose version of William Morris's assertion that art should serve need and there should be no differentiation between form and function. But this definition has its basis in the idea that function must drive creation, which is the toolmaker's view. For an object to satisfy a need its form must address that need, and any object whose form is directed otherwise or occurs spontaneously is just sort of in the way, unless it's somehow pleasing to look at. But in being pleasing to look at the object is still satisfying a need, so even for objects d'art form follows function. The dependency seems to be immutable, inescapable.
But the fact is we are surrounded by examples where function follows form. One that comes immediately to mind is the screwdriver, a tool whose form was originally driven by the need to amplify and transmit torque. The need to improve the twisting power of the human wrist drove not only the screwdriver's form but also that of the fasteners to be installed with it, and the form was so well-defined by the need that by now pretty much everyone knows a screwdriver is for loosening or tightening screws, to hang a cupboard door for instance, or who knows what else.
But I also believe that pretty much everybody knows a screwdriver is excellent for opening cans of paint too, and can even be used to stir the paint once the can is opened, even though neither of these functions were even considered when the tool was originally designed. In fact, if you want the inside scoop on exactly what a screwdriver was designed for just ask any well-trained machinist if you can borrow one to open some paint cans. Instead of a screwdriver you'll get seriously schooled in the orthodoxy of function-driven form, that there's a right tool for every job and each tool has its own purpose that you'd better learn to respect if you don't want to get tossed out of the shop.
But even the absolute power of the Orthodoxy of Tools can't change the fact that screwdrivers open cans of paint like a dream, and that simple truth is the crack in Mr. Morris's seemingly immutable idea. These other unorthodox ways to use a screwdriver were discovered after its form was already defined and fixed; they became part of what the tool can do when it was moved out of its design context and the new functions had to follow the already fixed form. See?
So to sum up:
The ability to remove an object from its orthodoxy and expand its definition while leaving its form unchanged is a key part of the process of invention. Therefore whenever function is allowed to follow form, invention must be happening.
Simple, yes? I thought you'd agree :)
OK. I'm done.
Peace,
Robert
Saturday, May 24, 2008
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
One for the whiners...
I'm just about done listening to people whine about taxes. Most tax complainers I've had to listen to have plenty of disposable income but still keep trying over and over to make people with less pay for more of what people with more take for granted as there for them for free.
"It's not fair that I should have to pay for things I don't get to use!" OK. Fine. My 8-year-old feels the same way. She still thinks sharing is wrong unless it's someone else sharing with her. She thinks roads and and schools and teachers and cops and all of that are just there for her for free. And why shouldn't she? Mom and Dad take care of all the icky little details she's not mature enough to understand. But you and I, we're not 8 years old and we know that everybody and everything has a price tag. You want to be responsible for the cost of every element of your daily life it's fine by me. But you better stay off of our roads and out of our schools, away from our courts and I better not catch any of you calling 911 to get our police to come bail you out of whatever mess you've gotten into.
But wait... how about this? How about you guys step up and start showing your kids how to share? How about you stop buying things you can't afford? How about instead of yet another plan to regress the tax burden downward so you get to keep all your precious money, you grow up and start showing a little of the conscience that was so severely lacking when the current administration was elected? There was plenty of money to go around until Emperor George spent it all and buckets more on his gunboat diplomacy and economic recklessness. Stop doing what he's been doing and the money will return. You don't think so? Take a look at the National Debt graph (WWII to 2006) on the GAO website and you'll see what I mean. Get smart. Grow up. It costs to be in this club, and we don't pay dues just to make you happy.
OK. I'm done.
Peace,
Robert
Update: here's links to the National Debt chart and source data ( I should have added this sooner -- rookie mistake!)
Chart: http://zfacts.com/p/318.html
Source docs: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2006/
"It's not fair that I should have to pay for things I don't get to use!" OK. Fine. My 8-year-old feels the same way. She still thinks sharing is wrong unless it's someone else sharing with her. She thinks roads and and schools and teachers and cops and all of that are just there for her for free. And why shouldn't she? Mom and Dad take care of all the icky little details she's not mature enough to understand. But you and I, we're not 8 years old and we know that everybody and everything has a price tag. You want to be responsible for the cost of every element of your daily life it's fine by me. But you better stay off of our roads and out of our schools, away from our courts and I better not catch any of you calling 911 to get our police to come bail you out of whatever mess you've gotten into.
But wait... how about this? How about you guys step up and start showing your kids how to share? How about you stop buying things you can't afford? How about instead of yet another plan to regress the tax burden downward so you get to keep all your precious money, you grow up and start showing a little of the conscience that was so severely lacking when the current administration was elected? There was plenty of money to go around until Emperor George spent it all and buckets more on his gunboat diplomacy and economic recklessness. Stop doing what he's been doing and the money will return. You don't think so? Take a look at the National Debt graph (WWII to 2006) on the GAO website and you'll see what I mean. Get smart. Grow up. It costs to be in this club, and we don't pay dues just to make you happy.
OK. I'm done.
Peace,
Robert
Update: here's links to the National Debt chart and source data ( I should have added this sooner -- rookie mistake!)
Chart: http://zfacts.com/p/318.html
Source docs: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2006/
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
On Loyalty, Community and Staying Employed
There has been a lot of earnest dialogue lately about company loyalty, and how employees just don't seem to have it anymore. Job-hopping has become the norm, it seems, and retaining quality staff has become a serious issue, something completely unexpected in this new global labor market. Full employment is hard to find these days; with wages being driven down and the cost of living spiralling you'd think those lucky to be fully employed would be more loyal, not less.
But the truth is, in the corporate world loyalty has always been a one-sided affair. The employee is loyal to his company, willing to go the extra mile and make whatever sacrifices are needed to ensure the company's success, yet respectful of the needs of the company. When asked to make the ultimate sacrifice the employee goes quietly, not taking it personally, knowing they were employed at-will and when the company stopped the music their chair would be gone. The company pretends loyalty to its employees by presenting the possibility of a long-term relationship, with a gold watch, a pension and something better than the county rest home at the end, but is never really expected to deliver.
I really don't think it's possible to be loyal to a company. A company is a ghost. All actions taken, positive and negative, are taken by people on behalf of an idea called a company. The "company" is a buffer that allows them to do things they might otherwise not do if they were directly accountable for the consequences. Claiming it was "the needs of the business" or the "company" that ended your ability to participate in the local economy is simply a way for people live with the damage they've done to their friends and co-workers in choosing their livelihood for elimination.
Believe it or not, I'm OK with this. The truth is that in matters of survival each one of us will choose ourself and our families over someone else, so anyone with a conscience will look for a higher reason for pulling the switch on their friends or neighbors. What I'm NOT OK with is the elaborate lengths we've gone to to avoid admitting this simple fact: Employment is survival, and you can't get more personal than that. Whether being offered a job or shown the door you have been chosen personally by other people. At that moment it doesn't matter what they were acting on behalf of or how the decision was reached, what matters is that a person looked at a list of names and selected you personally to either be used or rejected.
The big surprise for me was that once I acknowledged this, once it sank in and I surrendered to the fact of it, staying employed became a fight I could maybe win. I was also able to become a truly loyal employee -- not to the company, but to my colleagues and co-workers, which IMHO is where proper loyalty should be placed.
This is an iceberg issue, though. Getting the participants of the business world to honor the human component of Human Resources with the vigor devoted to the resource component is just a part of it. I think if you peel back enough layers you'll discover that the real cause of all the discontent is that people in general are getting lonely. Look around you and try to find someone whose perceptual back isn't turned, either by their Blackberry or their iPod or cell phone, or the ghost world of the "workplace culture". Visit one of the new mini-mall Town Centers after 8:00PM any evening and you'll find dark streets and empty buildings. The Town Center idea is another bit of collective untruth -- these places aren't built for people to congregate, they're built to bring customers in close proximity to products and we all know this at some level. We don't even talk about people much anymore -- consumers, customers, resources, it doesn't really matter if they're humans or not as long as they have money to be parted with.
We've allowed the daily direct casual connection with other humans that's the foundation of a real culture to be almost completely severed in the name of commerce. To be fair, though, there are some bright spots. I was hanging around our local mini-mall Town Center the other day thinking about this when I noticed a group of 10 or 15 Goth kids sitting around the outdoor firepit-cum-billboard. They were all engaged and interconnected on a level totally unrelated to the purpose of the locale. The little bastards figured out that they wouldn't be run off as long as a couple of them were holding cups from the local coffee bar, which rendered them indistinguishable from actual customers to the security guys. That was more community than I've seen anywhere in the grownup world in a long time, and I wanted to sit down and talk too but the Chains&Studs Hut was closed and I looked too much like somebody's Dad. Maybe next time.
I'm not an axe-grinder, bleeding-heart or streetcorner politician, and I'm not lamenting, just observing. And I'm going to stop here because my point is made. Those of you who are still with me, thank you for listening -- this has been on my mind lately and needed to see the light of day.
Now go outside and talk to somebody.
Peace,
Robert
But the truth is, in the corporate world loyalty has always been a one-sided affair. The employee is loyal to his company, willing to go the extra mile and make whatever sacrifices are needed to ensure the company's success, yet respectful of the needs of the company. When asked to make the ultimate sacrifice the employee goes quietly, not taking it personally, knowing they were employed at-will and when the company stopped the music their chair would be gone. The company pretends loyalty to its employees by presenting the possibility of a long-term relationship, with a gold watch, a pension and something better than the county rest home at the end, but is never really expected to deliver.
I really don't think it's possible to be loyal to a company. A company is a ghost. All actions taken, positive and negative, are taken by people on behalf of an idea called a company. The "company" is a buffer that allows them to do things they might otherwise not do if they were directly accountable for the consequences. Claiming it was "the needs of the business" or the "company" that ended your ability to participate in the local economy is simply a way for people live with the damage they've done to their friends and co-workers in choosing their livelihood for elimination.
Believe it or not, I'm OK with this. The truth is that in matters of survival each one of us will choose ourself and our families over someone else, so anyone with a conscience will look for a higher reason for pulling the switch on their friends or neighbors. What I'm NOT OK with is the elaborate lengths we've gone to to avoid admitting this simple fact: Employment is survival, and you can't get more personal than that. Whether being offered a job or shown the door you have been chosen personally by other people. At that moment it doesn't matter what they were acting on behalf of or how the decision was reached, what matters is that a person looked at a list of names and selected you personally to either be used or rejected.
The big surprise for me was that once I acknowledged this, once it sank in and I surrendered to the fact of it, staying employed became a fight I could maybe win. I was also able to become a truly loyal employee -- not to the company, but to my colleagues and co-workers, which IMHO is where proper loyalty should be placed.
This is an iceberg issue, though. Getting the participants of the business world to honor the human component of Human Resources with the vigor devoted to the resource component is just a part of it. I think if you peel back enough layers you'll discover that the real cause of all the discontent is that people in general are getting lonely. Look around you and try to find someone whose perceptual back isn't turned, either by their Blackberry or their iPod or cell phone, or the ghost world of the "workplace culture". Visit one of the new mini-mall Town Centers after 8:00PM any evening and you'll find dark streets and empty buildings. The Town Center idea is another bit of collective untruth -- these places aren't built for people to congregate, they're built to bring customers in close proximity to products and we all know this at some level. We don't even talk about people much anymore -- consumers, customers, resources, it doesn't really matter if they're humans or not as long as they have money to be parted with.
We've allowed the daily direct casual connection with other humans that's the foundation of a real culture to be almost completely severed in the name of commerce. To be fair, though, there are some bright spots. I was hanging around our local mini-mall Town Center the other day thinking about this when I noticed a group of 10 or 15 Goth kids sitting around the outdoor firepit-cum-billboard. They were all engaged and interconnected on a level totally unrelated to the purpose of the locale. The little bastards figured out that they wouldn't be run off as long as a couple of them were holding cups from the local coffee bar, which rendered them indistinguishable from actual customers to the security guys. That was more community than I've seen anywhere in the grownup world in a long time, and I wanted to sit down and talk too but the Chains&Studs Hut was closed and I looked too much like somebody's Dad. Maybe next time.
I'm not an axe-grinder, bleeding-heart or streetcorner politician, and I'm not lamenting, just observing. And I'm going to stop here because my point is made. Those of you who are still with me, thank you for listening -- this has been on my mind lately and needed to see the light of day.
Now go outside and talk to somebody.
Peace,
Robert
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
