Beauty and Utility Jones argues in The Grammar of Ornament (1856) that the primary function of design should be the purpose and that decoration should be of secondary importance. This idea came about in the late 19th Century after the time of the Industrial Revolution which brought about a massive social, political and economic shift to society. With the machine age came a massive surge in production with no rules to adhere to and the birth of the middle class, a class very keen to mimic the wealthy. Jones’ idea reflects the attitudes of the reformists, a group of upper class men who wanted to re-define the separation between themselves and the lower classes and bring a sense of regularity to the design world. These influential and powerful men devised a set of design principles and believed that unnecessary embellishment of design should be avoided, leaving design to be functional and simple. The image pictured above features a lamp which has been made to resemble a tree. It is an example of decoration being constructed and is an object which would have been opposed by Jones and other reformists. Jones was of the opinion that representation should not be entirely realistic but rather of an abstract nature in order to keep the design ‘pure’. This new style was different to popular culture and was an acquired taste intended to re affirm the difference from the upper class to that of the general public. To a certain degree I agree with Jones’ idea, function should most definitely be of paramount importance. There is no point having a beautifully decorated object which does not serve it’s purpose. However, the principles of design which these men developed did not not seem entirely clear. Pugin, a designer who played a crucial part in the design reform, did not adhere to these set of very restricting ground rules himself. The idea that decoration should not be constructed is valuable in ensuring the function of an object is not forgotten due to unnecessary decoration, however I find these construction laws to be somewhat creatively suppressive and misleading.

Beauty and Utility

Jones argues in The Grammar of Ornament (1856) that the primary function of design should be the purpose and that decoration should be of secondary importance. This idea came about in the late 19th Century after the time of the Industrial Revolution which brought about a massive social, political and economic shift to society. With the machine age came a massive surge in production with no rules to adhere to and the birth of the middle class, a class very keen to mimic the wealthy.

Jones’ idea reflects the attitudes of the reformists, a group of upper class men who wanted to re-define the separation between themselves and the lower classes and bring a sense of regularity to the design world. These influential and powerful men devised a set of design principles and believed that unnecessary embellishment of design should be avoided, leaving design to be functional and simple. The image pictured above features a lamp which has been made to resemble a tree. It is an example of decoration being constructed and is an object which would have been opposed by Jones and other reformists. Jones was of the opinion that representation should not be entirely realistic but rather of an abstract nature in order to keep the design ‘pure’. This new style was different to popular culture and was an acquired taste intended to re affirm the difference from the upper class to that of the general public.

To a certain degree I agree with Jones’ idea, function should most definitely be of paramount importance. There is no point having a beautifully decorated object which does not serve it’s purpose. However, the principles of design which these men developed did not not seem entirely clear. Pugin, a designer who played a crucial part in the design reform, did not adhere to these set of very restricting ground rules himself. The idea that decoration should not be constructed is valuable in ensuring the function of an object is not forgotten due to unnecessary decoration, however I find these construction laws to be somewhat creatively suppressive and misleading.

1 year ago  Notes (0)