Functionality vs. Aesthetics

tomshouse — Mon, 21 Feb 2011 21:40:04 +0000

The difference between objects that are purely functional in nature and those that are required to have some aesthetic value has become increasingly blurred. Objects, the value of which that was previously determined by pure usefulness are now expected to look and to feel beautiful. The example of a product where this desire for beauty has reached a position of near necessity is in the mobile phone. In 1983, when the mass proliferation of mobile phones first took hold the sheer size of the necessary technology meant that phones were huge, unwieldy and undeniably unattractive. The status that accompanied possessing a mobile phone stemmed from being able to do so something that others could not; make phone calls on the move. The desirability of the object stemmed from its function. The same was true of the early washing machines, microwaves and any recently developed commodity. Now every phone is expected to look beautiful. Not all are successful but they are all over designed, to the point where there actual function as a phone becomes diminished. 3GS that when it’s turned causes the battery to run dead in record time, buttons so small that typing a next message becomes a unwieldy chore. The aesthetic has replaced use as the most important feature of the product. This drive towards the aesthetic clearly has its basis in the desire for greater profits. There is a limit to how much money a customer is willing to pay for a phone. But if you make the phone part of someone’s image, an object of beauty, part of the world of fashion, the price people are willing to pay increases exponentially. The value that lies in the design of a product is almost entirely surplus value. It is not tied to raw materials or too much in the way of labour. Surplus value is obviously profit and as the ultimate drive of every commodity is towards profit and companies have found a relatively easy way to maximise profit. It’s clearly true that if one has a working phone then they have no reason to buy a new phone. However if a phone is purchased not for its function but for its appearance and a new more “beautiful” phone is released then people buy it, not for making phone calls but to be seen to have the latest phone. This is most apparent when one looks at adverts for mobile phones, very few adverts focus on how much better this phone will be and making phone calls and sending text messages, rather they show young, beautiful people, having fun, using the phone, generally appearing “aspirational.” This shift in the motivation for purchasing commodities is beginning to spread from mobile phones into all areas of human life. Kettle, washing machines, microwaves etc are now all expected to look beautiful as well as performing their function for a reasonable period of time, without breaking, or losing functionality. Again items are becoming increasingly unwieldy and impractical in the pursuit of aesthetics. The only logical conclusion of the ever increasing aestheticization is that technology begins to take a back seat to beauty and that design starts to dictate advancements in technology rather than a spirit of scientific discovery. And the world will be worse off as a result.

Tom's House

Functionality vs. Aesthetics