Utilitarian design

Last updated
The utilitarian design of a safety pin changed little since its invention in 1849 and over time acquired multiple symbolic meanings, including the rejection of mainstream beauty Safety Pin 2.jpg
The utilitarian design of a safety pin changed little since its invention in 1849 and over time acquired multiple symbolic meanings, including the rejection of mainstream beauty

Utilitarian design is an art concept that argues for the products to be designed based on the utility (as opposed to the "contemplated pleasure" of beauty). For example, an object intended for a narrow and practical purpose does not need to be aesthetically pleasing, but it must be effective for its task [2] and inexpensive: a steel power pylon carries electric wires just as well as a marble column would, and at a much lower cost. [3]

Contents

While an artefact designed with complete disregard of appearance (purely or strictly utilitarian design) can be imagined, David Pye argues that such objects do not exist, as the human nature makes it impossible to design anything without even a slightest consideration of its appearance. [4] As far back as in the Paleolithic Age, the stone tools were sometimes manufactured with better quality than the one required for the task. According to Pye, in practice the "purely utilitarian" objects are the ones made to fit the purpose at the lowest possible cost, from scaffolding to an oil refinery. In many cases making things more pleasing to the eye incurs no extra cost, and the techniques that result in better appearance are chosen in these cases. For example, the proper application of plaster to brick walls fulfills both functional (stopping the drafts) and aesthetic (smooth surface) goals. [5]

There is no clear boundary between the result of the utilitarian design and an object of art, with a classic example provided by cars. An automobile is simultaneously a very utilitarian mean of transportation and a highly personalized extension of ego. [6] Since the innovations in the utility and appearance are covered by two different mechanisms of intellectual property protection (patents for functionality, copyrights and trademarks for aesthetics), issues of the utilitarian design are of great interest to the courts and legal scholars. [7] [8]

The concept of utilitarian design is strongly associated with the Bauhaus school that championed it in the early 20th century. [9]

Functionalism

Bench of the Bauhaus era Siedlung Blumlager Feld, Celle (1930-31) Bauhaus era bench.JPG
Bench of the Bauhaus era

The rise of modernism in the late 19th and early 20th century caused utilitarian design, based on utility and economy, to be declared beautiful through a new aesthetic doctrine, functionalism. The initial stance of functionalists was uncompromising: a design using extravagant materials or ornamental elements cannot be beautiful; Adolf Loos titled his 1908 essay "Ornament and Crime" While this idealistic position softened with time, the "form follows function" idea remains highly influential, especially in architecture. [10]

Charles and Ray Eames stated that, when it comes to furniture, utility is more durable than appearance: "what works good is better than what looks good, the looks good can change, but what works, works". [11] The functionalism of furniture is pervasive since the advent of the International Style and especially noticeable in Scandinavian Modern. [12]

United States

In the United States, the "utilitarian article" (defined by 17 U.S.C. § 101 as an article of manufacture with an "intrinsic utilitarian function") may, in addition to patents, be protected by copyright per Copyright Act of 1976 if it possesses pictorial, graphic, or sculptural (PGS) features. [8] [13] For the copyright laws to apply to the PGS features, it should be possible to separate them from the pure utilitarian design. [14] [15] The US courts hold the position that trademark protection is only possible for features that are not "functional" and therefore "dispensable", like an identifying name. Granting trademark protection for functional features, "essential to the use or purpose of the article" or "[affecting] the cost or quality of the article" would effectively grant a patent of unlimited duration and thus create a monopoly. This antitrust stand, a so-called "functionality doctrine", is especially pronounced since 1995 (US Supreme Court decision in Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co.). [16]

European Union

In the EU, the legal treatment of the designs was harmonized in 1998 via the Directive on the legal protection of designs 98/71/EC. Similarly to the US, details of appearance that are dictated by the utility are excluded from protection. [17]

See also

References

  1. ↑ Benda 2021, p. 51.
  2. ↑ Heskett 2005, p. 28.
  3. ↑ Pye 1978, p. 78.
  4. ↑ Pye 1978, pp. 34–35.
  5. ↑ Pye 1978, pp. 77–78.
  6. ↑ Heskett 2005, pp. 29–30.
  7. ↑ Ginsburg 2016.
  8. 1 2 Lynch 1991, p. 647.
  9. ↑ Sturgis 2019, p. 5.
  10. ↑ Boyce 1985, pp. 118, 115.
  11. ↑ Ángel-Bravo 2020.
  12. ↑ Boyce 1985, p. 118.
  13. ↑ Setliff 2006, p. 50, Note 6.
  14. ↑ Setliff 2006, p. 57, Note 56.
  15. ↑ Setliff 2006, p. 54.
  16. ↑ Cunningham 1996, p. 574.
  17. ↑ Mahmood 2015, pp. 566–567.

Sources

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.