ART, BEAUTY AND FUNCTION

When we talk about Art, Beauty and Function they have different meanings to each and are not relatable when separated. However if you put them together you see a statement, something to ponder upon. Though different individuals have different perspectives to this. Some may consider that art without beauty and function is still a successful product, while others disagree to it. I’m of those who disagree.

The readers that I chose for my research also questions why the art we see nowadays are so reluctant to correlate with aesthetic values and for a design to be successful shouldn’t it have a specific function to it?

 “Today, though, it is simply treated by the art world as a joke, a con, an idiotic, old-fashioned idea. This makes much art irrelevant, because beauty is everywhere and obsesses everyone (whatever your idea of beauty happens to be).”

The statement above is from my first reader, which really drew my attention towards it. The whole idea of how the modern art community believes that beauty is an old fashioned idea? I honestly don’t understand how this can be true since beauty is everywhere. Even if we look at the simplest things we use, each and every single thing has an aesthetic value to it, therefore the purchase. For an example, the art pieces that I remember today from the art museums that I’ve been to are the pieces that looked attractive enough to draw me towards it, and to ponder about the value and meaning of it. Not the “art” that looked like someone had thrown a tantrum at it. And by attractive, I don’t necessarily mean that everything has to be in an order or very specifically figured. But something that with one glance you are taken aback by the details, the stroke or even the techniques. 

“A Design Is Only As Deep As It Is Usable”

This is a statement that truly makes you ponder. And I think a good statement for those who overlook to use functionality in their products. Consider this, if you were given to chose between a red Prada shoe which is extremely sophisticated or a Croc shoe which is known for its comfort rather than the beauty, what would you chose? The majority in my opinion would go for the Prada shoe. But what if you were asked to walk on a beach wearing the shoe? Would you be able to do so? You just might, but with a lot of difficulties. In such a case, wouldn’t you rather go for usability than design? Of course you will.

And if we consider Design in Interior Architecture which of the chairs below would you rather prefer to sit on for a period of 2hours or more? Will it be the chair of spoons or the comfortable Barca Lounger? I think the answer is pretty much obvious here.

“Beauty is only skin deep”.

We all know that beauty is important. But beauty cannot simply be by the façade. It has to be inner too. If a building had a beautiful exterior to it, but the interior architecture is pretty much worthless would people truly appreciate the building? I think not. I believe for something to be truly beautiful it has to have both the inner beauty and the exterior beauty and has to have a common ground. 

In conclusion, ART, BEAUTY AND FUNCTION is a whole. One without the other is incomplete in the form of design.