Menu
Home Explore People Places Arts History Plants & Animals Science Life & Culture Technology
On this page
Utilitarian design

Utilitarian design emphasizes creating products primarily for their utility rather than their aesthetic appeal, as seen in practical objects like a steel power pylon that efficiently serves its purpose at low cost. While David Pye notes that purely utilitarian objects ignore appearance, human nature often leads to some level of design consideration. From the Paleolithic Age to modern scaffolding and oil refineries, functionality is key, but aesthetics can align with function, such as smooth plaster on brick walls. The boundary between utilitarian objects and art blurs in items like cars, which combine function with personal expression. This interplay is reflected in intellectual property laws covering patents and trademarks. The Bauhaus movement notably popularized this design philosophy.

Related Image Collections Add Image
Profiles
1 Image
We don't have any YouTube videos related to Utilitarian design yet.
We don't have any PDF documents related to Utilitarian design yet.
We don't have any Books related to Utilitarian design yet.
We don't have any archived web articles related to Utilitarian design yet.

Functionalism

See also: Functionalism (architecture)

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.9

See also: Utility furniture

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".10 The functionalism of furniture is pervasive since the advent of the International Style and especially noticeable in Scandinavian Modern.11

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.1213 For the copyright laws to apply to the PGS features, it should be possible to separate them from the pure utilitarian design.1415 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 European Union, 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

Sources

References

  1. Heskett 2005, p. 28. - Heskett, J. (2005). Design: A Very Short Introduction. Very Short Introductions. OUP Oxford. ISBN 978-0-19-160661-8. Retrieved 2025-02-01. https://books.google.com/books?id=tKnHFe25OEQC&pg=PT50 ↩

  2. Pye 1978, p. 78. - Pye, David (1978). The Nature and Aesthetics of Design. London: Random House Business Books. ISBN 978-0-214-20375-6. ↩

  3. Pye 1978, pp. 34–35. - Pye, David (1978). The Nature and Aesthetics of Design. London: Random House Business Books. ISBN 978-0-214-20375-6. ↩

  4. Pye 1978, pp. 77–78. - Pye, David (1978). The Nature and Aesthetics of Design. London: Random House Business Books. ISBN 978-0-214-20375-6. ↩

  5. Heskett 2005, pp. 29–30. - Heskett, J. (2005). Design: A Very Short Introduction. Very Short Introductions. OUP Oxford. ISBN 978-0-19-160661-8. Retrieved 2025-02-01. https://books.google.com/books?id=tKnHFe25OEQC&pg=PT50 ↩

  6. Ginsburg 2016. - Ginsburg, Jane C. (2016). "Courts Have Twisted Themselves into Knots: US Copyright Protection for Applied Art". Columbia Journal of Law and Arts. 40 (1). https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/faculty_scholarship/2000 ↩

  7. Lynch 1991, p. 647. - Lynch, Michael J. (1991). "Copyright in Utilitarian Objects: Beneath Metaphysics". University of Dayton Law Review. 16 (3): 647–677. https://ecommons.udayton.edu/udlr/vol16/iss3/3 ↩

  8. Sturgis 2019, p. 5. - Sturgis, Daniel (2019). Bauhaus: Utopia in Crisis. London: Camberwell College of Arts. ↩

  9. Boyce 1985, pp. 118, 115. - Boyce, C. (1985). Dictionary of Furniture. Skyhorse. ↩

  10. Ángel-Bravo 2020. - Ángel-Bravo, Rafael (2020-12-16). "The Banana Leaf Approach: An Appreciation of Utilitarian Handcrafted Artifacts in the American Context". Sociedad y Economía. doi:10.25100/sye.v0i42.10248. hdl:10893/20124. ISSN 2389-9050. Retrieved 2025-02-03. https://sociedadyeconomia.univalle.edu.co/index.php/sociedad_y_economia/article/download/10248/13399 ↩

  11. Boyce 1985, p. 118. - Boyce, C. (1985). Dictionary of Furniture. Skyhorse. ↩

  12. Lynch 1991, p. 647. - Lynch, Michael J. (1991). "Copyright in Utilitarian Objects: Beneath Metaphysics". University of Dayton Law Review. 16 (3): 647–677. https://ecommons.udayton.edu/udlr/vol16/iss3/3 ↩

  13. Setliff 2006, p. 50, Note 6. - Setliff, Eric (2006). "Copyright and Industrial Design: An Alternative Design Alternative". Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts. 30 (1): 49–78. ↩

  14. Setliff 2006, p. 57, Note 56. - Setliff, Eric (2006). "Copyright and Industrial Design: An Alternative Design Alternative". Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts. 30 (1): 49–78. ↩

  15. Setliff 2006, p. 54. - Setliff, Eric (2006). "Copyright and Industrial Design: An Alternative Design Alternative". Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts. 30 (1): 49–78. ↩

  16. Cunningham 1996, p. 574. - Cunningham, M. A. (1996). "Utilitarian Design Features and Antitrust Parallels: An Economic Approach to Understanding the Funtionality Defense in Trademark Litigation". Hastings Communications and Entertainment Law Journal. 18 (3): 572–589. https://repository.uclawsf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1436&context=hastings_comm_ent_law_journal ↩

  17. Mahmood 2015, pp. 566–567. - Mahmood, Tiffany (2015). "Design Law in the United States as Compared to the European Community Design System: What Do We Need to Fix?". Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal. 24 (2): 555–583. https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/iplj/vol24/iss2/5 ↩