"It is the pervading law of all things organic and inorganic, of all things physical and metaphysical, of all things human and all things superhuman, of all true manifestations of the head, of the heart, of the soul, that the life is recognizable in its expression, that form ever follows function. This is the law." ~ Louis Sullivan
To Sullivan, "function" didn't mean merely "utility" or "pragmatic use." Instead, it meant something like "life force." His "form follows function" dictum expressed a kind of essentialist vitalism. The "essence" of a thing in nature (an eagle, a cloud, a river) is its life force. This life force results in the outward form of that thing. In Sullivan's own words, "Unceasingly the essence of things is taking shape in the matter of things."
"Whether it be the sweeping eagle in his flight, or the open apple-blossom, the toiling work-horse, the blithe swan, the branching oak, the winding stream at its base, the drifting clouds, over all the coursing sun, form ever follows function, and this is the law. Where function does not change form does not change. The granite rocks, the ever-brooding hills, remain for ages; the lightning lives, comes into shape, and dies in a twinkling."
Every Force Evolves a Form
One problem with "form follows function" is that it is tautological - it presupposes that every form in the natural world exists as it does because of functional requirements. We start with the end result (the form), look backward toward its origins, and assume that the results were inevitable. But there are any number of reasons why something might have a particular form (chance, malevolence, whim, purposeful design, play, folly, and numerous combinations thereof).
A better, less tautological mantra comes from Mother Ann Lee (1736–84), founder of the Shaker movement in America: "Every force evolves a form." From this perspective, form doesn't simply, dutifully follow a set of functional requirements. Instead, dynamic forces gradually forge resultant forms. These forces aren't simply functional; they can also be communal or spiritual, as was the case with the Shakers.
For working designers, "every force evolves a form" is a more useful rule. The design process actually begins with something that doesn't yet exist but needs to exist, and it moves forward toward a formal result. Function alone doesn't drive the resultant form. The form evolves from the holistic forces of the project—audience needs, client desires, ethical obligations, aesthetic inclinations, material properties, cultural presuppositions, and yes, functional requirements. "Function" is rightly seen as a single, isolated, quantifiable aspect of the overall "force" driving the form.
True, the Shakers did esteem utility. They found it beautiful. According to one of their slogans, "That which in itself has the highest use, possesses the greatest beauty." But more forces were bearing on the form of Shaker furniture than mere utility. The teachers of the Bauhaus also esteemed utility, but the forms of their furniture are far from identical to the forms of Shaker furniture because a host of other historical, philosophical, and material forces in addition to mere utility were affecting and evolving both forms.
What is the Function of Clothing?
The primary function of clothing is to improve the comfort of the wearer. In hot climates, clothing provides protection from sunburn or wind damage, while in cold climates its thermal insulation properties are generally more important. Shelter usually reduces the functional need for clothing. For example, coats, hats, gloves, shoes, socks, and other superficial layers are normally removed when entering a warm home, particularly if one is residing or sleeping there. Similarly, clothing has seasonal and regional aspects, so that thinner materials and fewer layers of clothing are generally worn in warmer seasons and regions than in colder ones.
Clothing protects people against many things that might injure the uncovered human body. Clothes act as protection from the elements, including rain, snow and wind and other weather conditions, as well as from the sun. However, if clothing is too sheer, thin, small, tight, etc., the protection effect is minimized. Clothes also reduce the level of risk during activity, such as work or sport. Clothing at times is worn as protection from specific environmental hazards, such as insects, noxious chemicals, weapons, and contact with abrasive substances. Conversely, clothing may protect the environment from the clothing wearer, as with doctors wearing medical scrubs.
Humans have shown extreme inventiveness in devising clothing solutions to environmental hazards. Some examples include: space suits, air conditioned clothing, armor, diving suits, swimsuits, bee-keeper gear, motorcycle leathers, high-visibility clothing, and other pieces of protective clothing. Meanwhile, the distinction between clothing and protective equipment is not always clear-cut, since clothes designed to be fashionable often have protective value and clothes designed for function often consider fashion in their design.
The wearing of clothes also has social implications. They are worn to cover those parts of the body which social norms require to be covered, and act as a form of adornment, as well as other social purposes.
Cultural Aspects
Gender differentiation: To promote sexual equality, socialist men and women should dress the same.
Social status: Socialists, whose goal is a classless society, should avoid the wearing of the western business suit and necktie.
Ethnic and cultural heritage: People may wear ethnic or national dress on special occasions or in certain roles or occupations.
Future trends
The world of clothing is always changing, as new cultural influences meet technological innovations. Researchers in scientific labs have been developing prototypes for fabrics that can serve functional purposes well beyond their traditional roles, for example, clothes that can automatically adjust their temperature, repel bullets, project images, and generate electricity. Some practical advances already available to consumers are bullet-resistant garments made with kevlar and stain-resistant fabrics that are coated with chemical mixtures that reduce the absorption of liquids.
Does American Socialism Have a Dress Code?
- The 'dress code' of American Socialism is common sense. Recycled or surplus clothing is always a good choice.
- Throw on loose fitting jeans or cargo pants. You're a Socialist now, you don't have the inclination to buy pants that are tight fitting. Just as long as they cover you up they're doing their job just fine.
- Wear a plain, solid colored, button-down work shirt, or polo shirt. Black or dark blue are good color choices.
- Don boots. They should look like you haven't cleaned them up since you bought them years ago. For summer wear, sandals are appropriate.
- Sport a plain, beat-up looking overcoat. It should be warm and practical, and not all that easy on the eyes. (Army surplus field jackets are always good.)
- Formal wear: Sun Yat-sen Tunic
- Everyday wear: Classic Mao Jacket
- Casual Wear: Vintage Vietnam Fatigue Jacket
- Head-wear: The Che Beret
- Foot-wear: Classic 'Communist' Sandals
That should give you some food for thought....
No comments:
Post a Comment