Hi Terry, Bitiz, Esra
and Bernhard sorry for the extra "t"
Terry, what a terrific post. Very well crafted. I tend to agree with
you in everything. Except that I interpreted Esra challenge as a sort of
mapping for the different meanings and uses of the concept of function
and not as looking for a definition. Having this in mind, first I must
relate your purpose with Bitiz's teleology. There are very few examples
in which you don't kill, in the sense that you put an end to something
in order to construct another. Silk bugs, wool and cork came to my mind
as examples of milder dead. They loose their cocoons, hair and scorch,
not their lives.
But I would like to add "performance" to "purpose" as you have express
in n.2 of your post. A function may be also a repeated task performed.
In that sense I interpreted always "form follows function" as form "must
not stand in the way of proper functioning". This is probably more an
'architetish' problem because you know that a building may, in the
future, not have the same purpose as it had originally.
By the way, I scanned also some of L.B. Alberti works in Latin and
Functio or Functione do not appear. And what Morgan translates as
function is "officia" or "officium" which in a more colloquial manner
could be translated as "the business of architecture", for instance. So
in 1914, function as functionalism put it, was not in Morgan's mind, his
Utilitas is "convinience".
One of the Virtues of the Discipline of History is that you must make a
contact with the original sources.
Hanno-Walter Kruft, for instance, almost disregards Utilitas and
Firmitas and even suggests that gnomonice and machinery were in
Renaissance times wrongly though as being also part of Marco's
architectural thinking, . Kruft, in his chapter about Vituvius, mostly
speaks about what Venustas is. I agree with him. Not only Botticelli and
his Birth of Venus come to my mind but because the Myth of The Birth of
Venus synthesises what I think worthy to study. Briefly after being
'married' to Uranus (the Sky) and Chronos (Time), Gaia (Earth) concealed
Zeus that will kill his father by emasculating him. Zeus symbolizes the
empire of humans in the earth after sky and time. Chronos semen falls
one last time over Gaia and Titans are born (symbolizing uncontrollable
natural forces) and our dear Milanese girl Afrodite, in the ocean near
Cyprus. She is therefore daughter of time and earth, Zeus's complete
sister born in the last moment of the empire of time in earth and in the
first moment of the empire of men on earth, a goddess of desire,
uncontrollable, unexplained. As you all know she is married to Hefestos,
god of industry, but she betrayals him with Mars, (maybe this explains
the fondness of some women for chocolate) and others.
What I'm getting at is that, and making a big jump in my arguments, is
that attraction, beauty is the crucial characteristic of the Function
that matters in Design.
My older daughter has her 20th birthday today, she studies Ceramics
Design, and I'm very proud of her.
Best regards,
Eduardo
Em 14-09-2012 02:11, Terence Love escreveu:
> Dear Esra,
>
> A defining factor in your question is 'purpose'.
>
> Why would you want to know more about the 'concept of function'?
>
> The most obvious reason is to *use* your 'improved knowledge of the concept
> of function' in a different way from how it would normally be used.
>
> Three issues come to mind:
>
> 1. The large number of variants of meaning of the term function in existing
> disciplines. The variation in meaning of the use of the term 'function'
> across all disciplines is far larger than across the 700 or so design
> disciplines and that is far larger than the variant in meaning of
> 'function' across the 40 or so disciplines of the Art and Design cohort.
> Some use the term carefully and others less carefully. For some the care
> extends across all dimensions of theory making and for others it is
> specific to particular aspects of theory. The 9 categories of meta-analyis
> of they I devised in the 90s is perhaps of use for separating these (Love,
> 2000)
>
> 2. The second issue is potential for variation caused by translation. This
> may be crucially important, if you are needing accuracy of meaning for using
> of 'the concept of function' in a different way from how it would normally
> be used. An example, is the problem with the translation of Vetruvius' work
> into English (and perhaps Portugese) that Eduardo has already identified.
> The word 'function' comes to us in English from Latin (functio) which means'
> performance' and 'execution' in the sense of something having been done and
> completed. It did so via early French via the accusative form. That is, it
> is a noun that is the object of a transitive verb. The standard structure
> of a transitive sentence is 'Eduardo (subject - noun) painted (transitive
> verb) the wall (object - noun)' . In this case, the term 'function' is
> defined as always having the properties of the 'object'. For example, 'the
> artist (subject) completed (transitive verb) the performance (object). A
> problem for defining the term 'function' with regard to translations of
> Vetruvius is he *didn't use* 'Functio'. Vetruvius used a completely
> different term 'Utilitas' which has a very different meaning. 'Utilitas'
> means the use of something, or in abstract form its utility. As Eduardo has
> pointed out something can have a function (performance) and not have utility
> and vice versa. It may be the substitution of 'utilitas' by 'function' in
> translations of Vetruvius by writers in architecture was potentially
> motivated by the benefits of a political sleight of hand to bolster
> functionalism. Those who have criticised architects use of 'form follows
> function' may have more accurate information on this.
>
> 3. Perhaps most important, is the scope of accurate conceptual detail in
> critiques, derivation and use of a concept of function'. Defining the
> concept of function is a non-trivial task. It is much more difficult than it
> appears to produce such a definition at appropriate doctoral level that can
> form the basis for sound theory making an design research. The extent and
> number of boundary conditions that need to be address is large and both
> contradictory and difficult. For example, does a broken watch have the
> property of having the function of a watch? Is a function in a
> part-completed thought of a design still a function? The only text that I
> have come across that addresses these issues of 'the concept of a function'
> with the epistemological and ontological detail necessary for acting as a
> foundational theory for theory making in design research is Houkes, W and
> Vermaas, P. E (2010) Technical functions: On the Use and Design of
> Artefacts. Drodrecht: Springer. This text is also of interest because they
> offer a different way of defining design as an activity. I reviewed the
> book fior the publishers and was surprised and delighted by the authors
> exact and accurate care and attention to conceptual and critical detail. It
> also has an excellent bibliography of texts that provide the theoretical
> foundations for understanding the concept of function. I've attached the
> review below. The book is really useful and requires a careful read.
>
> If your intention is a comprehensive understanding of 'the concept of
> function', I expect that after reading Houkes and Vermaas book 'Technical
> Functions', you would likely interpret other texts about 'the concept of
> function' and 'function in design' in a more critically detailed way and
> perhaps differently from how you might first interpret them - I did. It's a
> book I'd recommend to anyone making theory about design at doctoral level
> and above.
>
> Best wishes,
> Terence
>
> === Terence Love (2011) 'Review of Houkes, W and Vermaas, P. E (2010)
> Technical functions: On the Use and Design of Artefacts. Drodrecht:
> Springer'. Perth: Love Design and Research.
>
> This book on technical functions in the use and design of artefacts follows
> the sequence in the title with the authors' emphasis on use of artefacts.
> The book is deeply useful for anyone making theory in design realms
> involving artifacts of any sort.
>
> This is a text that contributes to theory foundations in Philosophy and
> Technology Studies and Design Research in general. It develops a critical
> and clearly articulated theoretical foundation for the idea of 'technical
> functions' as it relates to the use and design of artifacts. In parallel,
> the authors go some way to contributing to the theory foundations that
> underpin the idea of a 'designed artifact'. In parallel, this has
> implications for how they authors define the activity of 'designing'.
>
> The essence of the book is simple: cleaning up the theory around how
> technical functions are attributed to artifacts. It is an unusual and, to
> this reviewer at least, a peculiarly exciting book. The authors embark on
> their task by locating artifacts, design and use in the realm of activities
> with their consequent choice of an 'action-theoretic' theory foundation
> driving the whole book from the start, including a necessary redefinition of
> design as the 'creation of "use plans"'. A 'use-plan' being implicit or
> explicit set of indications or instructions for the user of an artifact for
> doing something with it, and, importantly for designers, being knowledge
> used by designers to design the artifact.
>
> The authors assume designers have in their minds how users of an artifact
> will use it. That is, designers consciously or subconsciously identify use
> plans for future users and undertake design activity with these use plans in
> mind to create artifacts that satisfy these use plans. From the authors'
> action-theoretic perspective, they define the technical functions and
> functioning of an artifact in terms of, and as the fulfilment of, the
> artifact's 'use plans'. In some ways, this can be seen as extending the
> theoretical basis of the concept of usability.
> The overall problem that authors contribute to addressing is that the
> widespread superficial assumptions of the relationships between 'function'
> and 'artifact' do not stand up to critical scrutiny. Conceptual and
> theoretical weaknesses in this area mean that more advanced theories are
> often on weak foundations and this in turn compromises or calls into
> question large swathes of the theoretical literature involving artifact
> design and use.
>
> The book extends prior analyses and theories in relation to the current
> literature on theories of functions. The authors categories this previous
> literature into three main groupings (I, C, and E): 'Intentional' theories
> of functions ('I theories' in which the functions of an artifact depend on
> the intentions of designers and users); 'causal' theories of artifacts ('C
> theories' in which the functions of an artifact depend on what changes it
> causes); and 'Evolutionary' theories of functions ('E theories' in which
> artefacts and their functions are assumed to develop over generations to
> fulfil particular functional roles). The book both complements and extends
> these earlier theories into a unified ICE form that substantially combines
> their better aspects whilst minimising and avoiding their limitations.
>
> The reasoning that underpins the authors' new theories has three stages:
>
> . Analysis relating to the role of 'use-plans' in exposing the detail
> of different aspects of functions ascribed to the use and design of
> artifacts
> . The development of their new theory perspective, the ICE perspective
> and its variants.
> . A review of this new ICE approach to looking at 'functions',
> 'artifacts' and designing' as they apply to improving on the existing I, C
> and E function theories and in coherently addressing 'edge' conditions: for
> example to artifacts that don't work, artifacts that are used for a
> different purpose from that intended, and designed artifacts that do not
> have 'use-plans'.
>
> The authors painstakingly work their way across all of this territory, using
> real world exemplars to dot the 'I's and cross the 't's of their new
> analyses, reasoning and new theory developments. This care of analysis is
> impressive and something that is widely missing from much of the design
> literature.
>
> The major findings in the book comprise the outcomes of the authors'
> critical analysis of existing theory foundations representing and explaining
> technical functions relating to the use and design of artifacts. Of benefit
> in this is the authors' approach which identifies 'desiderata' that such
> theories must address. The main finding is however, the development of the
> authors' own theory of technical functions, the ICE theory. This
> action-theoretic ICE theory combines aspects of existing theories of
> technical functions to gain the benefits of all of them and remove the
> majority of their weaknesses. In addition, it extends the scope of their ICE
> theory to areas not well addressed by any of the other theories.
> The book potentially has significant impact on the field of Philosophy and
> Technology Studies through providing a sounder theoretical foundation for
> research and theory development. Creating the future is a central concern of
> Philosophy and Technology Studies and creating the future depends on the
> design and use of artifacts and the technical functions that they offer.
> This book provides an improved theory foundation relating to the ways
> technical functions are associated with artifacts. The authors' new
> developments potentially impact through all areas of the Philosophy and
> Technology Studies realm.
>
> For readers, the book has at least three different roles and is of benefit
> to three different groups of readers: undergraduate's studying design and
> the use of functions in design; professional designers; and academics and
> researchers in the realms of Philosophy and Technology Studies and Design.
> Selected parts of the book are appropriate for teaching undergraduates new
> insights into understanding the roles of technical functions in the use and
> design or artefacts. The second is for high level designers working at the
> cutting edge of design of products as the book assists them to think beyond
> traditional design theory and practices, most of which are do not stand up
> well to critical inspection or are dated to the point of being irrelevant.
> Having done this, professional designers have a new jumping off point for
> developing products with a new direction for the inclusion of functions that
> more authentically relates to their human usage. This opens up potential for
> improvement in participatory and collaborative design processes. The third
> role of the book is for academics and researchers involved in building a
> body of sound theory about the use and design of artefacts in terms of
> activities, practices, problems, products, systems and processes. In this
> context, this book acts as a source of well-developed theory in its own
> right; as a source of inspiration in developing new design theory; and as a
> reference text for the many elements of design research analysis that the
> authors have either coined or referred to.
> While the authors have gone a long way to making the material easily
> accessible through the use of simple real world examples throughout the
> book, this is a solid read. It's a book that works in two ways. The first is
> to read it in mentally bite-sized pieces following the flow of argument.
> Much of the book can be read relatively randomly providing the early
> chapters are read thoroughly. The second is as a reference to understanding
> how technical functions can best be attributed to artefacts when artifacts
> are viewed in terms of their roles in activities. It reads at times like a
> much longer book that has been stripped back to its essence.
>
> The quality of writing is both sound and precise. The authors have created a
> coherent thread through the book that first identifies the weaknesses of
> existing theories of Technical Functions and establishes a position to stand
> in critiquing exit sing theory in focusing on an action theoretic
> perspective and use-plans and developing a coherent list of desiderata that
> new theory must satisfy. y. The authors then carefully develop new theory
> and test it against a wide range of theoretical situations identifying
> improvement and limitations on the way. This is a book written in an area of
> theory that is intellectually 'tough' territory and the authors provide an
> appropriate suite of analyses.
>
> The logic and reasoning of the text stands up to detailed scrutiny and the
> authors are to be commended on their thoroughness in identifying the wide
> range of issues that impinge on the new theory model and on which the new
> theory has an impact. I was impressed by their level of detailed analysis.
> This is not to say that the reading of the text is effortless. This is a
> text that is substantially philosophical in nature and rewards (and often
> charms) the reader when read slowly and carefully. After reading, it offers
> a useful role as an ongoing reference.
>
> Terence Love
> ===end
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related
> research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Esra Bici
> Sent: Wednesday, 12 September 2012 3:02 PM
> To: Dr Terence Love
> Subject: The concept of function.
>
> Dear all,
>
> Hope you have a nice day.
>
> I would ask you if you recommend me any reference about "the concept of
> function".
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Esra.
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]> Discussion of PhD
> studies and related research in Design Subscribe or Unsubscribe at
> https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]> Discussion of PhD
> studies and related research in Design Subscribe or Unsubscribe at
> https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]>
> Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
> Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
--
Eduardo Côrte-Real
Prof. Doctor
IADE, Lisboa
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]>
Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
