Industrial Design2

8/4/2019 Industrial Design2

1/8

Philosophy, Department of

Philosophy Faculty Research and Publications

Marquette University Year 1981

Industrial Design: On Its Characteristics

and Relationships to the Visual Fine Arts

Curtis CarterMarquette University, [email protected]

This paper is posted at e-Publications@Marquette.

http://epublications.marquette.edu/phil fac/71


2/8

Leonardo, Vol. 14, No. 4, pp. 283-289, 1981Printed in Great Britain 0024-094X/81 /040283-07$02.00/0Pergamon Press Ltd.

INDUSTRIALDESIGN: O N I T SCHARACTERSTICSN DRELATIONSHIPSO T H E VISUALF I N E A R T SCurtis L. Carter*

Abstract-Industrial designand the visualarts sharea commonaesthetic basisas demonstratedbytheir common use of aesthetic principlesand by designerswho are also visual artists. The authorexamines the rationale or exhibiting industrialproducts in art museumsand the similarities anddifferences between industrial design and the fine arts. He argues that industrialdesign sharesimportanttheoreticalconcepts (expression, representationand style) with the visual ine arts.

I. INTRODUCTIONVisual artists have attempted to interpretindustryin various ways for quite a long time. In the 20thcentury, for example, the Italian futurists Balla andRussolo and the painters Leger and Picabia inFranceintroducedmachineelements and interpreta-tions of power and speed provided by machines intotheir artworks; Duchamp exhibited Ready-mades,such as an ordinaryshovel bearinghissignature,andsome artists have exhibited imaginarymachines assculpture. During this period artists also found anew role as industrial designers. More recently,artists, for example in the U.S.A. those such as JackBurnham, Frank J. Malina and many others,entered into projects that involve the collaborationof artists and engineers. Parallel to these develop-ments is the practice of exhibiting industrialproducts designed for functional purposes in fineart museums of several countries. These threeconverging developments, which I shall refer to asindustrial design and its relations to the visual finearts,have been given littleattentionby aestheticians.The intent of this article will be to demonstrate thatthe visual arts and industrial design share acommon aesthetic basis. This basis, however, doesnot imply a complete assimilation of one to theother, nor the acceptance of a division between theaesthetic and the practical,as was done, for exampleby Immanuel Kant [1].My interest in the aesthetic questions posed byindustrial products was intensified by the Art andIndustry Exhibition that I prepared in 1979 forMarquette University. It consisted of industrialproducts from 36 companies in the U.S.A. and wasdevoted to the transport of materials, consumer

goods and people [2]. It was divided into two parts,an outdoor exhibit of trucks, automobiles, recrea-tional vehicles and farm and construction equip-ment (Fig. 1) and an indoor exhibit of smallerproducts, for example of engines, control andprocessing equipment, etc. (Fig. 2). The indoorexhibit also included displays of design drawingsand models to explain the design process and modeof operation of the products and an original 55minute sound 'collage'by composerYehudaYannayentitled 'MilwaukeeBrewProject',based on soundsin industrial environments.The products in the outdoor and indoor exhibitswere arranged loosely into functional groupingsaccording to their featuresof shape, scale and colorinto the following eight divisions: constructionmachinery, service vehicles, recreational vehicles,agricultural machines, electric motors and gen-erators, machine components, electric controls(Fig. 3) and accessories. A monumental 75,000 kgred-orange olored earthexcavatormadeby Koehring

*Aesthetician, Dept. of Philosophy, CharlesL. Coughlin Hall,Marquette University, Milwaukee, WI 53233, U.S.A. (Received11 Feb. 1980)

Fig. 1. Viewof outdoorexhibitof vehicles at the 'ArtandIndustry:The Art of Industrial Design' exhibition, Marquette University,Milwaukee, Wisconsin, U.S.A., 1979. (Photo: A. Lovinescu,Shorewood, WI, U.S.A.)

283


3/8

Curtis L. Carter.....;....:....,:.:::

::::x::::.:i;-Rd:::li"::::.............?"'$?;.~'..''.,-,."~:.~ "'..t..-;.'i^ :':::''.'.............; i ............._ o.......-'"'"='.: ,.|S F F; G o:: .....[.llm~mm,..~,___

- |*~~~~~~~~~~~~w,M.:~..~:0;i ..w-A,-.,..*,r': ' ~ ~

Fig. 2. View of indoor exhibit of industrialproducts. (Photo: A.Lovinescu, Shorewood, WI, U.S.A.) (See Fig. 1)

Fig.4. View of earth excavator produced by the Koehring Co.,Milwaukee, WI, U.S.A., at an entry way to the Exhibition. (SeeFig. 1)

Fig. 5. View of the automobile 'Excalibur'designed by BrooksStevens (Photo: A. Lovinescu, Shorewood, WI, U.S.A.) (SeeFig. 1)

;148.MAGNETCONTROPLDE.SQUARE.DO.TU.. . .~~~~~~~3~~~~~~~T..............

Fig. 3. Viewof magnet controller,producedby the SquareD.Co.,Milwaukee, WI, U.S.A. (Photo: A. Lovinescu, Shorewood, WI,U.S.A. (See Fig. 1)

(Fig. 4) formed an arch over an entry way to theoutdoor exhibit, where the custom-built sports car'Excalibur', designed by Brooks Stevens (Fig. 5),wasjuxtaposed against therecently designed starklywhite garbage truck made by the Heil Company(Fig. 6). In the indoor exhibit, stainless steel

Fig. 6. View of the garbage truck produced by the Heil Co.,Milwaukee, WI, U.S.A. (Photo: A. Lovinescu, Shorewood, WI,U.S.A.) (See Fig. 1)

284


4/8

II. A RATIONALEFOR EXHIBITINGINDUSTRIAL OBJECTS AS ARTWORKSIndustrial products are periodically, though notfrequently, exhibited in art museums. In GreatBritain, the British Institute of Industrial Art,founded in 1914, organized exhibitions and estab-lished a modest permanent collection of industrialproducts at the Victoria and Albert Museum, andthere are earlier precedents [3]. Philip Johnson'sexhibition entitled Machine Art at the New YorkCity Museum of ModernArt in 1934[4] marked thebeginning in the U.S.A. of critical and publicrecognitionthat industrialproductscan beexhibitedfor their aesthetic qualities. There have beensubsequent exhibitions at the Museum of ModernArt and elsewhere. Nevertheless nearly 50 yearsafter Johnson's exhibition at the Museum ofModern Art the permanent display of selectedindustrial products there remains miniscule. Anexhibition of industrialproducts in an art museumcontinues to puzzle many visitors, artists andscholars of art, and agencies in the U.S.A. thatprovide funds to art museumsquestion the value ofsuch exhibitions on the grounds that they lackartistic significance.The painter Ad Reinhardtasserted, for example,that the function of an art museum is to preservevisual fine art only. 'Any disturbance of themuseum'ssoundlessness,airlessness,andlifelessnessis a disrespect' [5]. I contend, however, that manyindustrial products are suitable for display inmuseums because of their family resemblance tosome artworksand because theirappearanceis alsooften based on aesthetic considerations. I shall noteimportant differences that separate fine art andindustrial design.In order to establish the rationale for exhibitingindustrial products in fine art settings, withoutcompromising eitheran institution or the products,it is necessary to examine first the emergenceof thediscipline of industrial design. Uncertainties overthe designation of those who designin particular heexterior appearance of industrial products wasresolved in the U.S.A. early in this century byadopting the special term industrial designer.Consciousness of a missing aesthetic factor in the

exterior appearance of industrial products led to anew role for visual artists. They were invited, orchose, 'to go into the factories' to participatein thedesign of products. One of the first to be called anindustrial designer was Peter Behrens, who washired in 1907 by a company in Germany to serveboth as architect and graphic designer [6]. Amongthe pioneers of industrialdesign in the U.S.A. in the1930swereWalterDorwin Teague,HenryDreyfuss,Norman Bell Geddes and Raymond Loewy. Theycame from backgrounds in theatrical design andarchitecture,and they affected the exterior appear-ance of automobiles, trains, steamships, clocks,

processing arteries made by Ladish vied for atten-tion with the gray-colored electric motors andgenerators from the Louis Allis Co.A survey of museum catalogues of industrialdesign exhibitions in the U.S.A. from the 1920stothe 1980s showed that a relatively narrow range ofobjects such as chairs, lamps, cameras, typewriters,clocks and automobiles were displayed. In contrastto earlier exhibitions of industrial products inmuseums, which had been influenced by theBauhaus approach, no attempt was made to selectproducts possessing either 'precious' or 'the mostunique' design features. Priority was given to thesuggestions of manufacturersto present what theyconsidered relevant.The Marquette exhibition of industrial productsgave priorityto their aestheticcharacteristics nvolv-ing form and color. Simple white pedestals wereused to support smaller products, and the largerproducts were exhibited free standing. Museum-type signs were used to identify the products andtheir makers.The intent of the exhibition was to examine therelation of visual fine art to contemporary ndustrialproducts. It raised for discussion such questions asthese: Who are the visual artists in industry in theU.S.A.? Whatfeaturesof industrialproductswarranttheir display in an art exhibition?Whathasbeenthecontribution of visual artists to the design ofindustrial products? What is the present state andthe future of industrial design?Lecturesand symposiato considerthesequestionswere held in conjunction with the Exhibition. JackBurnham, sculptor and art critic, presenteda paperentitled Engineering and Avant Garde Art inwhich he tracedthe development of worksby artistsin the U.S.A. involving 20th century engineeringconcepts. His study might lead industries to makemore use of visual artists. Composer YehudaYannaygave a paper entitled IndustrialSoundsandNew Music. He told how he had used soundsrecorded in industrial settings to make the sound'collage' commissioned for the Exhibition, and hediscussed the need to take into account theproblemsof undesirable noise in industrial processes.Industrial designers Brooks Stevens and WilliamPorter representedthe industrialdesign profession.Stevens, who also served as guest consultant for theExhibition, spoke on The Relation of Art toIndustry from the perspective of a free-lanceindustrial designer. He emphasized the importanceof the aesthetic qualities of products. Porter, adesigner for the General Motors Corp., discussedthe industrial designer's role as a member of thecorporate team. Both of them noted the importanceof their training in architecture (Stevens) andpainting (Porter)for theirwork in industrialdesign.Porter, Stevens and Yannay were joined by PhilipLewis, landscape architect at the University ofWisconsin-Madison, and Jack Waldheim, teacherof design at the Universityof Wisconsin-Milwaukee,in a symposiumentitledArt and Industry:Designingfor the Future.

thermostats and numerous other objects [7].One view of industrial design was that it wasconcerned with ornament or decoration to beapplied to a product to make it more visually

IndustrialDesign 285


5/8

appealing after its engineering design had beendetermined [8]. This view closely resembles theornamental approach to craft in the 19th century[9], and fell into disreputebecause of the demandsof mass production.The other view of industrial design is that adesigner must begin to work concurrently withproduct engineers, material specialists and market-ing experts [Ref. 3, p. 28]. The dominant aestheticofthis approach to industrial design, one whichincorporated traditional ideas of beauty (order,harmony, balance,proportion,unityand simplicity),was functionalism,whichfrequently ed to machine-inspired values such as precision, smoothness,reproducibilityand economy [3, p. 227 and 4, p. 5].Suitability for use, good materials,good workman-ship and innovative structural and visual designwere the goals of well designed products.The practiceof industrialdesign along the linesoffunctionalism ed the early20thcenturypractitionersto become aware of the need to explain the newdiscipline. Gilbert Seldes defined industrial designas the application of taste and logic to the productsof machinery [10]. Dreyfuss said that 'industrialdesign is a means of making sure the machinecreated attractive commodities that work betterbecause they are designed better. It is coincidental,but equally important', he adds, 'that they sellbetter' [10, p. 21].Recently the International Congress of Societiesof IndustrialDesign adopted the following descrip-tion of an industrialdesigner:Onewho isqualified ..to determine the materials, construction, mech-anisms, shape, colour, surface finishes and decora-tion of objects which are reproducedin quantitybyindustrialprocesses... The industrialdesigner mayalso be concerned with the problems of packaging,advertising, exhibiting and marketing...' [11].Other descriptions have been proposed that areeven broader in scope [11, 12]. Critics of theprofession question whether industrial design is infact a distinct art; for example, Victor Papanekasserted: 'Design at present operates only as amarketing tool of big business' [13]. However, Ibelieve my discussion above supports the claim thatindustrial design involves the aesthetics of visualfine art.It remains to be shown that selected industrialproducts are suitable for exhibitinspacesordinarilyreservedfor works of fine art. If industrialdesignersreceive virtually the same training as painters,sculptors and design architects, then there is arationale for displaying industrial products inmuseums. In the past, artists produced both art-works and utilitarian objects. Leonardo da Vinci,for example, made paintings and also carvedbuttons for a pope's mantle and designedmachines.Walter Gropius, Moholy Nagy and Paul Klee werepracticing artists and members of the BauhausSchool of Design. More recently, Arne Jacobsenexercised with equal facility the roles of painter,industrial designer and architect [14].As in any of the visual arts, design refers to the

planning stage of an artefact. Industrial designersprovide sketches, drawings and models for theexterior design of products, though their rolecompared to sculptors encompasses a wider rangeof technical considerations. Norman Bel Geddessaid: 'Charcoal,paint and clay, to be sure,aremuchmore sensitive to the subtleties of individualexpres-sion than sheet metal... on the other hand, steam-ships, airplanes, and radios present the sameorganic problems of design as do architecture,sculpture, and literature'[15].These same artistic qualities can stimulate anaesthetic response in viewers, whether they arepresent in an artwork or in an industrial product.Seeing such a product in an art museum allows itsartistic qualities to be appreciated, which is lesslikely to happen when it is in use or when it is shownin a museum of technology.III. SIMILARITIESAND DIFFERENCES

BETWEEN INDUSTRIAL DESIGN AND THEFINE ARTSThere is a larger issue to be examined. Only asmall number of writings in English on the generaltopic of art and industry exists. Some of them arelisted in Ref. 16. None'of these writers, exceptRudolf Arnheim [16], has examinedextensivelytherelation of industrial products to fine art or thebroad aesthetic questions posed by industrialdesign.I wish to make some preliminaryconsiderationsof whether industrial design shares important

theoretical concepts with fine art. Arnheim hasprovided persuasive examples to demonstrate thatthe major aesthetic concepts of expression, repre-sentation and style of fine art apply also toindustrialproducts. He says: 'What we see ... is theexpressive behavior of a pattern of visual forces.This pattern is related to the pattern of physicalforces that constitutes the function of the object ...The correspondenceis nevercomplete. The externalshape selects for visual presentationand interpreta-tion only a few among the actual physical featuresof the object. These features may not be faithfullyportrayed; they may be intensified or weakened...In fact the appearance may present features notphysically contained in the object [16, p. 209].These aspects of industrialproducts parallelcertainfeatures of sculpture and painting. And further,portrayal of function acquires aesthetic quality byserving symbolically for one's perception of theproduct' [Arnheim, 16, p. 209 and 17].There was aproduct in the Marquette University Art andIndustry Exhibition that I find supports Arnheim'spoint that industrialproducts can share qualities offine art works. It was the processingarteryshown inFig. 7. Its order, balance and simplicity echo thoseof a piece of sculpture.

The Swiss sculptor Max Bill has pointed out'Designers who realizenew formsareconsciously orunconsciously reacting to trends in contemporaryart because it is in art that the intellectual and

286 Curtis L. Carter


6/8

IndustrialDesign

Fig. 8. Viewof theindustrialcraneproducedby HarnishfegerCo.,Milwaukee, WI, U.S.A. (See Fig. 1)Fig. 7. View of processing arteries produced by Ladish Co.,Milwaukee, WI, U.S.A. (Photo: A. Lovinescu, Shorewood, WI,U.S.A. (See Fig. 1)

spiritual currents of every epoch find their visibleexpression. Works of art may often be ridiculed ormisunderstood when firstproducedbut theiralmostimmediate influence on everybranch of designsoonbecomes apparent... A glance from the sculptureof any of these phases to the best motorcar modelsbrought out about the same time at once reveals thecloseness of this involuntary connection betweenforms in art and forms in use, or, as we might callthem, "product forms"' [18].Papanek too shares the point of view thataesthetics and function are conjoined when heobserves that an ordinary piece of wall board,whose primary use is to cover a wall, must alsofulfill the aesthetic aspect of function by offering avariety of choices of texture and color [13, pp. 18,19].Despite the similarities between fine art andindustrial design, there are obvious differencesbetween them. That the differences consist simplyinfunction and in appearance seems to me aninadequate estimate. Function often influences theshape of an industrial product, but, as in fine art,style evidently plays a role. Function does notpreclude aesthetic appeal in a product, any morethan the aesthetic value of an artwork precludesitsuse in a decorator's scheme.Nor does appearance nitselfdistinguish ine artworksand industrialproducts,as I pointed out above. Another example is thecrane shown in Fig. 8, to which constructivist

sculptures bear resemblance.In regard to the differences it is worth recallingthe description of industrialdesign given above: An

industrialproduct to be sold must work well and itsexternal appearance is also important. Unlike theindustrialdesigner,however, an artist is not obligedto make works that sell. If an industrial itemis to besold in large numbers as a consumer product, theresponsibilityfor its design extends to the product'smanufacturerand investorsin the business and alsoto the buyerswho expect efficient and safe productsat low cost.Reproducibility and low production costs arenecessary constraints in industrial design, whereasuniqueness (except for lithographs, etc.) is a goal inthe fine arts and cost of materials(with exceptions)and of an artist's time aregenerallynot constraints.Since manufacturers in 'consumer' societies oftendeliberately make use of planned obsolescence toincrease sales [Stevens, Ref. 2; Loewy, Ref. 3; 19,20], industrial designers are pressed to make'innovations', many of a trivial character.Of courseunplannedtechnicalobsolescenceoccursin industrialproductsbecause of theapplicationof newscientificknowledge, inventions, materials, etc. [21].By contrast, artistic creativity and innovationdoes not render obsolete artworks of the past.Although artistic innovation in industrial societieshas been particularlystressedsince the 19thcentury,its most vigorous advocates, such as the futuristsand constructivists, have not succeeded in theirefforts to establish a point of view of theobsolescenceof artworks of the past. Only the philistines in thecommercial art market and self-serving promotorsof 'new' art encourage this point of view. There isnot a positive endorsementby the generalpublic of

innovation in the fine arts, as there seems to be inproduction of consumer products. On the otherhand, in the commercial and curatorial art worlds

287


7/8

Curtis L. Carterinnovative styles of fine art go in and out of fashionas do innovative designs of industrial products.These considerations suggest that the principaldifference between industrial design and fine art isone of direction. I have noted that appearanceandfunction do not in themselves differentiate fine artand industrial products. Nevertheless, the primaryorientation of industrial design is toward themanufacture of efficient low cost products, forexample, of a crane. A crane is not intended fordisplay, but to be used for lifting and transportingheavy objects. Its display in a museum is in a senseaviolation of the end for which it has been con-structed. However, an industrial designer maymake its externalappearanceaesthetically satisfyingwithout interferingwith its functioning and increas-ing its cost.Dewey characterizesthe main differencebetweenfine art and industrialproducts thus: 'The work ofart... unlike the machine, is not only the outcomeof imagination, but operates imaginatively ratherthan in the realm of physical existences. What itdoes is to concentrate and enlarge an immediateexperience.Theformedmatterof aestheticexperiencedirectlyexpresses, n other words, the meaningsthatareimaginatively voked; t does not, like thematerialbrought into new relations in a machine, merelyprovide means by which purposesover and beyondexistence of the object may be executed'[22].Paintings and sculpture may, of course, have afunction or utilitarian role, for they can serve ascomponentsin a decorator's chemeand as objectsofcommerce. However, they are most valued foraesthetic reasons when artists do not take thesefunctions into account. On the other hand, anindustrial designer is not permitted to imposeaesthetic features on a product that would conflictwith its use.

Although I have arguedthatappearance s not, ofitself, a sufficient answer to the question ofdifference, it must necessarilybe a dominant factorin any object whose appeal is visual. I have alsoargued that an artwork is directed primarilytowards being displayed as an object of aestheticcontemplation. Appearance thus is the vehicle foraesthetic expression that enablesviewers to compre-hend formal qualities, iconography and subjectmatter of artworks. By contrast, the primarydirection of industrialdesignersis to providefor theexternal appearance of a product an aestheticappeal that complements its functioni.

IV. CONCLUSIONSMy previous discussion has been based on thenotion that artistsand industrialdesignersalike areinvolved in the aesthestic qualities of, first, paint-ings, sculptures, etc, and second the externalappearance of machines, machine parts, etc. It is

important to ask, nevertheless,how new technologyand the changing roles of artists and of industrialdesigners affect the relationship of fine art andindustrial design. Electronics, computers, plastics,

laser technology, xerography, cybernetics, bionics,etc. offer new challenges to artists and industrialdesigners.Will the application of these newdevelop-ments produce paralleldevelopments in fine artandindustrialdesign?Clearly, industrialdesignersmustcope with them, whereas artists need not, althoughthere are quite a number who are using them tomake artworks and operators of museums andcommercial galleries are slowly learning to dealwith them. Max Bill asserted that trends in the finearts are the source of new formsin industrialdesign.Perhaps this was true earlier in the century, but Ithink his assertion can be called into question inview of the kind of artworks that are dominant inthe art world at presentand of the reverse influenceof innovative industrialprocesses that artists adoptfor their own purposes.Changes in the role of industrial designers fromspecialist to generalist(Nelson), especiallyin regardto urbanenvironmentalproblems, may have alteredthe relation of the fine arts to industrial design.However, the consciousness of whole environments,rather than of isolated parts, has also influencedartists in industrialsocieties, as readersof Leonardoare well aware. Earth Art, environmental installa-tions, Performance Art and multi-theatrical art-works reflect this influence.Accompanying advances in technology and theroles for industrialdesignersarechangesin aestheticvalues expressedin such terms as precision,smooth-ness and reproducibility, and new processes, tech-niques and materials. The traditional aestheticvalues of order, balance and simplicity seem to be

fundamental, and yet even these aesthetic valuesmay need to be reexamined.A prevailingattitudeoftoday's industrial designers is expressedby Archerwho says: 'It is my personal belief that thereare noPlatonic values, no permanentrulesof good design,which stand outside man' [11, p. 110].The views of the pioneers of industrial designhave been called into question. Papanek, forexample, asserts that: 'The concept of what workswell of necessity looks well, has been the lameexcuse for all the sterile operating-room-likefurniture and implements of the twenties andthirties' [13, p. 15]. Such designs are lacking inhuman value, he contends.The recent expression of concern by industrialdesigners for social and moral responsibilitypointsto another dramatic shift of values, as pointed outby Archer, Nelson and Papanek. Does this recentconcern indicate an abandonment of past aestheticvalues? Or does it signal a closer union of aestheticvalues and social-moral values? At the moment inthe U.S.A. there does not seem to be a heighteningof social and moral concern among visualartists.Where then has my investigation led? I believe ithas provided a rationale for exhibiting selectedindustrial products in art museums and galleriesbecause industrial designers are often also artistsand they approach the design of products byrelating aesthetics to their functional purposes.

288


8/8

IndustrialDesignFurthermore, while industrial products are func-tional objects first and some of them for artdisplayssecond, artworksareintendedprimarily or aestheticcontemplation. It is not possible therefore tosubstitute industrialproducts for artworks withoutsubstantial loss of meaning. However, artists andthe general public can benefit from the examinationof the aesthetic features of industrialproductsin thereflective environment of a museum [23].

REFERENCES AND NOTES1. I. Kant, The Critiqueof Judgement,J. C. Meredith, trans.(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1952, 1969) pp. 41-90. See alsoH.-G. Gadamer, Truth and Method (New York: SeaburyPress, 1975) pp. 39-90.2. C. Carter and B. Stevens, Art and Industry: The Art ofIndustrialDesign, exhibition catalogue (Milwaukee: Mar-quette Univ., 1979).3. J. Gloag, Industrial Art Explained (London: Allen andUnwin, 1934, 1946. N. Pevsner,An Enquiry nto IndustrialArt in England (New York: Macmillan, 1937).4. P. Johnson, Machine Art (New York: Museum of ModernArt, 1934) and (New York: Arno Press, 1969).5. A. Reinhardt, Art and Art, in Esthetics Contemporary,R.Kostelanetz. ed. (Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books, 1978)p. 213.6. Industrial Design, in Encyclopedia Britannica (Chicago:William Benton, 1958) Vol. XII, p. 284.7. D. J. Bush, Streamliningand American IndustrialDesign,Leonardo 7, 309 (1974), and D. J. Bush, The StreamlinedDecade (New York: George Braziller, 1975).8. OxfordCompanionofArt, H. Osborne,ed. (Oxford:OxfordUniv. Press, 1970) p. 61.9. C. Bradley, Designin theIndustrialArts Peoria, IL: CharlesA. Bennet, 1952) p. 32.

10. Quoted in H. Dreyfuss, Designing for People (New York:Simon and Schuster, 1955) p. 22.11. L. B. Archer, Design Awareness and Planned Creativity(Ottawa: Department of Industry, Trade, Commerce andthe Design Council of Great Britain, 1974) p. 19.12. G. Nelson, George Nelson on Design (London: WhitneyLibraryof Design, 1979) p. 8.13. V. Papanek, Design or the Real World:HumanEcologyandSocial Change (New York: Pantheon, 1971)p. 91.14. R. Hackney, Arne Jacobsen: Architecture and Fine Art,Leonardo5, 107 (1972).15. N. B. Geddes, Horizons (Boston: Little, Brown, 1932)p. 8.See also Ref. 7.16. H. Read,ArtandIndustry London: Faber, 1944);S. and M.Cheyney, Art and the Machine (New York: McGraw Hill,1936); R. Arnheim, From Function to Expression, inAestheticInquiry:Essayson Art CriticismandthePhilosophyof Art, M. C. Beardsleyand H. M. Schueller,eds. (Belmont,CA: Dickenson Publishing, 1967)pp. 199-214; G. Paulson,Design and Mass Production, in Design and IndustryAssociation Quarterly,XVI (1931); Refs. 3, 4.17. R. Arnheim, TheDynamicsofArchitecturalForm(Berkeley:Univ. California Press, 1977)pp. 257-262.18. M. Bill, Form (Basel: K; Werner, 1952) p. 11.19. J. Oliver, Take YourChoice, catalog (New York: CooperHewitt Museum, 1979) p. 1.20. T. Veblen, The Instinctof Workmanship nd the State of theIndustrial Arts (New York: A. M. Kelly, 1964); TheEconomic Theory of the Woman's Dress, in Essays in OurChangingOrder(New York: A. M. Kelly, 1964);TheTheoryof the Leisure Class (Boston: Houghton, Mifflin, 1973). D.Bush, Thorsten Veblen's Economic Aesthetic, Leonardo9,281 (1976).21. P. J. Grills, Form,FunctionandDesign (New York: Dover,1960) p. 11.22. J. Dewey, Art as Experience(New York: Capricorn, 1934,1958) p. 273.23. My colleague, William Dooley, has provided helpfuleditorial suggestions to an earlier version of this article.

289

Documents

Industrial Design2