Form vs Function vs Form

In our university journey as design students, we are constantly challenged to question everything we thought we knew about objects, their purpose, and the way we experience them. The unit we’re currently studying, which focuses on the tri-dimensional aspects of design, forces us to reframe our perceptions. It’s no longer about simply creating something “beautiful” or “useful.” Instead, we are learning to think through making—to explore, deconstruct, and reconstruct objects as systems of meaning.

The unit is divided into two major themes: Form vs Function and Function vs Form, and this division reflects two very different but deeply intertwined ways of seeing and designing.

Form vs Function: Interpreting the Object

In this first phase, we examine objects as they exist in the world. This is a theoretical and practical exploration where we analyze utility in all its dimensions—what does it mean for something to be useful? Is obsolescence a failure of function or a product of shifting social values?

We’re asked to read the object, to see beyond its aesthetic or ergonomic qualities. A broken chair, for example, might still “function” as a cultural artifact or a provocation. Through critical analysis, we explore the tension between form, function, and the way objects actually work in practice.

Books like “The Design of Everyday Things” by Don Norman offer a foundational lens for this kind of reading. Norman talks about affordances and user-centered design, but as we learn, not every object reveals its purpose easily. Some mislead; others resist interpretation. This opens up fascinating territory for critical writing and reflection—what makes an object readable? When does function become a performance rather than a utility?

We also engage with visual representation in design—how we translate an object’s function into diagrams, drawings, and models. Language matters, and we’re discovering that the tools we use to describe and classify things shape how we understand them.

Function vs Form: Inventing the Object

Then comes the inversion—Function vs Form. Now, we’re no longer reading objects, we’re making them. But here’s the twist: we must invent function first, without relying on pre-determined forms. It’s harder than it sounds.

This unit is hands-on, experimental, and often frustrating. We work with materials directly, exploring their plastic, tactile, and structural qualities through trial and error. There’s no blueprint. We learn through doing—cutting, gluing, folding, failing. And with each attempt, we refine both our ideas and our craft.

This process reveals how deeply embedded formal habits are. It’s difficult not to default to what we’ve seen before, but the exercises demand originality. We are challenged to create objects that propose new ways of interacting with the world, not just new aesthetics. Books like “Formless” by Yve-Alain Bois and Rosalind Krauss help us think beyond the traditional binaries and consider what it means for something to lack form or resist categorization entirely.

Critical Reflection as Design Practice

What I find most exciting—and most difficult—is how this course pushes us to write critically alongside making. We don’t just make objects, we reflect on them, frame them, and position them within broader systems of meaning. Writing becomes a design tool, a way to articulate intention and provoke dialogue.

We are not only learning the physical construction of objects but also the construction of meaning through visual language, context, and narrative. As we move into the 2D components—typography, image, and composition—we begin to see how communication design and product design are not separate realms, but parts of a continuum.

This integrated approach makes us more thoughtful, more critical, and more intentional as designers. We don’t just solve problems—we learn to question the problem itself.