# Functions and the Aesthetics of Technical Artefacts ![rw-book-cover](https://readwise-assets.s3.amazonaws.com/media/uploaded_book_covers/profile_1188016/dfdacBoOEdj0GQ8k3mWDMDTCF6bnIjytr5dLiwZNJ0o-cove_xvLhnF5.png) ## Metadata - Author: [[Wybo Houkes]] - Full Title: Functions and the Aesthetics of Technical Artefacts - Category: #articles - Summary: insert summary - My notes: - Summary: The text discusses how analyses of functions in technical artefacts complicate the development of accounts for aesthetic appreciation. It explores the challenges of linking function ascriptions to aesthetic judgments and suggests that a middle ground between traditional and everyday aesthetics may be found through function-based accounts. Overall, the text highlights the complexities involved in integrating theories of artefact functions with Functional Beauty accounts for aesthetic appreciation. - URL: https://readwise.io/reader/document_raw_content/171762862 - Source File: Functions and the Aesthetics of Technical Artefacts by Houkes.pdf ## LLM Chats ## NotebookLM ## LLM Audio ## Highlights > despite first appearances, so-called ‘Functional Beauty’ accounts cannot derive strength from analyses of artefact functions; on the contrary, these analyses constrain the possibilities for developing a suitable, function- based account of aesthetic appreciation. ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01hxf1bhrj77e841k5pa0mdf6x)) > These complications are directly related to three phenomena – here called functional variability, artefact flexibility, and malfunctioning – as these have been accommodated in function theories. ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01hxf1j9yhakmhkvzf3gtd7577)) > [A first desideratum, called ‘Selectivity’ here, is that accounts should not be so lenient that everything may be regarded as beautiful, or so strict that nothing may. This desideratum features in critical discussions, especially of ac- counts in everyday aesthetics (e.g., Parsons and Carlson](https://readwise.io/reader/document_raw_content/171762862/#bookmark33) [2008, 55; Downey 2010, Forsey](https://readwise.io/reader/document_raw_content/171762862/#bookmark23) 2013, 224). ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01hxf1mev11h8xd9epjbp52rt7)) > A second desideratum, ‘Polarity’, is that an account should encompass nega- tive as well as positive modes of appreciation. An account of beauty that has nothing to say on ugliness or plainness, or that analyzes the former and latter > in concepts that are evidently unrelated, is analytically inelegant, conceptu- ally more convoluted or less informative than an account that analyses both in terms of the same or closely related concepts. > [‘Correctness’, a third desideratum, is that an account should provide grounds for considering some acts of appreciation more appropriate or cor- rect than others. This enables reasonable discourse about contrasting judge- ments, through providing criteria of aesthetic appropriateness (e.g., Zangwill](https://readwise.io/reader/document_raw_content/171762862/#bookmark48) [2014) or determinacy (e.g., Parsons and Carlson 2008). This desideratum is not necessarily respected by an account that has the normative bite required by ‘Selectivity’, although the latter is also associated with a dismissal of aesthetic relativism (e.g., Parsons and Carlson](https://readwise.io/reader/document_raw_content/171762862/#bookmark33) 2008, 55). An account with trivial appro- priateness conditions for, say, positive appreciation would meet ‘Correctness’ – negative appreciation of any artefact would be inappropriate – while lacking normative bite. > [Finally, many maintain that the act of aesthetic appreciation or the subject of this act should depend on non-aesthetic features or properties of the appre- ciated item (Sibley](https://readwise.io/reader/document_raw_content/171762862/#bookmark40) 1965). A desideratum of ‘Aesthetic Dependence’ requires of an account that it incorporate or, preferably, explicate the relation between aesthetic appreciation or qualities and non-aesthetic features. ‘Aesthetic De- pendence’ is not equivalent to ‘Correctness’; the latter would be met by an account that grounds aesthetic appreciation in aesthetic properties without explicating the relation with non-aesthetic qualities. ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01hxf1n2r8v374a3pafckf3zkq)) > • Proper-accidental’: a function theory should distinguish between the inherent, stable or entrenched functions of an item, and ways the item may occasionally, transiently or even accidentally function. This reflects that function ascriptions are both restrictive and versatile. For instance, a screwdriver has driving screws as its proper, enduring function, but it may also be used to open paint cans, and its blade may occasionally con- duct an electrical current. > • ‘Malfunction’: a function theory should leave room for the possibility that artefacts fail to realize what is identified as their proper function. The proper function of a passenger train is to transport people between rail- way stations, but any particular train may fail to do so, and specific types of passenger train (say, the Fyra V250 high-speed train) may be particu- larly failure-prone. > • ‘Support’: a function theory should ground function ascriptions in non- functional features. There should be a measure of support – epistemi- cally as well as ontologically – for function ascriptions to an item, even if the item malfunctions or has a function only transiently. This prevents a proliferation of function ascriptions, including those to ‘crackpot’ inven- tions such as perpetual motion machines. > • ‘Innovation’: a function theory should ascribe intuitively correct func- tions to innovative items. Some technological innovation appears to consist in novel functionalities, sometimes of already existing types of technical artefacts. In such cases, a function theory ought not to be ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01hxf1rr9an2ndmg8yp5w17cab)) > unduly conservative. If Aspirin is found and then marketed and used to prevent blood clots, a theory should allow for ascribing this new function to Aspirin, without thereby ruling out continued ascription of its tradi- tional pain-alleviating function. ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01hxf1rycsrzkgecqt0n0c6w9p)) > The literature distinguishes three ‘archetypical’ function theories, i.e., broadly applicable types that require further development with respect to any area of functional discourse. The archetypes are: (i) intentionalist theories that asso- ciate the functions of items with the intentions of those dealing with these items; (ii) causal-role theories that associate the functions of items with their causal contributions within more encompassing systems; (iii) selected-effects theories that associate the functions of items with effects of their predecessors that were favoured in some selective environment ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01hxf1wcnmq19a85ptk8n7azmc)) > None of these archetypes meets all desiderata: ‘Proper-Accidental’ and ‘Support’ are stumbling blocks for intentionalist theories; ‘Proper-Accidental’ and ‘Malfunction’ for causal-role theories; and selected-effects theories do not meet ‘Innovation’. Yet a second insight is that the archetypes can be combined and developed to compensate each other’s shortcomings. This has led to sev- eral sophisticated proposals that diverge significantly in their main conceptual apparatus ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01hxf1wr62v7jh0wt4h72faccn)) > • [The ice theory of technical functions (Houkes and Vermaas](https://readwise.io/reader/document_raw_content/171762862/#bookmark27) 2010), in which function ascriptions are analysed against the background of more or less entrenched ‘use plans’, which are constructed by designers and executed by users; > • [The general-design theory (Krohs](https://readwise.io/reader/document_raw_content/171762862/#bookmark29) 2009), in which functions are analysed in terms of contributions of ‘type-fixed’ components to a capacity of a system that is the realisation of a ‘type-fixing’ design; > • [A pluralist account of functions (Preston](https://readwise.io/reader/document_raw_content/171762862/#bookmark36) 2013), which explains ‘proper- function phenomena’ through effects of artefacts that have been selected by market forces and ‘system-function phenomena’ through effects that contribute to some overall systematic effect ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01hxf1x1wgm4j3c7hnkthsrgce)) > Each theory strictly speaking meets all four desiderata for function theories. Yet a third insight [is that it proves difficult to resolve fully a tension between two aspects of function ascriptions. On the one hand, function ascriptions are rooted in relatively stable design and use practices, which by their histo- ry provide a solid grounding in actual features, even if this grounding might not always be transparent to designers or users. On the other hand, there are breaks with tradition: both positively, in creative use, prototypes, and func- tional innovations, and negatively, in malfunctioning artefacts. All function theories accommodate stability and discontinuity as integral to the phenom- enology of artefact use and design, although there are differences in emphasis and analysis. Theories with strong intentionalist or causal-role elements ac- cept or even emphasize innovation and improvisation, whereas theories with strong selected-effects elements emphasize stability to the point of explaining away radical functional innovations (e.g., Parsons and Carlson](https://readwise.io/reader/document_raw_content/171762862/#bookmark33) [2008, 81; Preston 2013, 157). Still, to meet the desiderata even partly, all theories need to leave some room for ‘functional flexibility’. This includes long-term changes in as- criptions of proper functions as well as occasional failure and improvisation. Incorporating all forms of flexibility, or even only all varieties of malfunction- ing, is a balancing act. Overemphasizing the continuity or conservatism of function ascriptions risks ignoring the possibility of functional innovation or forms of malfunctioning, e.g., by not ascribing proper functions to novel pro- totypes (Preston](https://readwise.io/reader/document_raw_content/171762862/#bookmark36) [2013, 156), artefacts with ‘phantom functions’ (Preston](https://readwise.io/reader/document_raw_content/171762862/#bookmark35) [2009, 217–218), or malfunctioning types (Houkes and Vermaas](https://readwise.io/reader/document_raw_content/171762862/#bookmark27) 2010, Ch.7) ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01hxf1znpxvvxs2f20xxmr9h6t)) > A final, fourth insight [is self-relativizing: functions are found to be not as crucial to artefacts as is commonly but also cursorily assumed. For one thing, it has been argued that functions do not indicate a suitably reliable cluster of properties that could constitute the nature of artefact kinds (Thomasson](https://readwise.io/reader/document_raw_content/171762862/#bookmark43) [2003, Houkes and Vermaas](https://readwise.io/reader/document_raw_content/171762862/#bookmark26) [2004). Metaphysicians who have assumed such ‘function essentialism’ tend to downplay the ontological status of artefacts (e.g., Wiggins](https://readwise.io/reader/document_raw_content/171762862/#bookmark45) [2001), to rely on function concepts that do not satisfy all desiderata (e.g., Bak-](https://readwise.io/reader/document_raw_content/171762862/#bookmark21) [er 2004), or to restrict themselves to a narrow set of artefact types (e.g., Elder](https://readwise.io/reader/document_raw_content/171762862/#bookmark24) [2004). Furthermore, ordinary categorization of technical artefacts might ap- pear to be predominantly functional, as exemplified by categories such as ‘corkscrew’ or ‘power plant’. However, experimentation on categorization prac- tices instead suggests that a pluralism of categorization principles, partly but not exclusively related to functions, may be at work; and function theories are coherent with such pluralism (Houkes and Vermaas](https://readwise.io/reader/document_raw_content/171762862/#bookmark28) 2013). ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01hxf24m0vx9hnyrfw7n3r3t5p)) > [In this section, I argue that the insights presented in the previous section cre- ate complications for fb accounts. Throughout, the focus is on what Sauchelli](https://readwise.io/reader/document_raw_content/171762862/#bookmark38) (2013) has called internalist [fb accounts, on which functionality and the fea- tures realizing it – here, specifically of technical artefacts – contribute directly to (positive or negative) aesthetic appreciation. Such accounts are here taken to have normative rather than only descriptive aspirations: they do not just ex- plain how appreciation is shaped by functionality, but argue that functionality sets standards for aesthetic appreciation – more strongly, for proper or appro- priate appreciation. The more general outlook is that of a cultural or cognitivist aesthetics, on which “knowledge about the object of appreciation is an essential component of its appropriate … appreciation” (Parsons and Carlson](https://readwise.io/reader/document_raw_content/171762862/#bookmark33) 2008, 35). ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01hxf26fe13r12arnqkzsczxfq)) > [Developing an fb account that meets ‘Correctness’ and profits from func- tion theories that meet ‘Support’ encounters a first, general complication. As described above, functions can, on none of the successful combinations, be understood as essential to technical artefacts. More specifically, functions – suitably analyzed – are found not to pick out a reliable cluster of properties:](https://readwise.io/reader/document_raw_content/171762862/#bookmark10)4 artefact functions are multiply realizable, some even massively so. Corkscrews, for example, come in all kinds of shapes, using various operational principles and configurations of parts: T-shaped or winged; lever or air-pump; handheld or mounted – to give but a few types. ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01hxf29sfx0v2mapv29vsa6k68)) > [The complications raised by functional variability can be illustrated by looking at the details of some prominent fb accounts. Parsons and Carlson](https://readwise.io/reader/document_raw_content/171762862/#bookmark33) (2008, Ch.4) develop a phenomenology of functional beauty by distinguishing three modes: (i) perceiving ‘fitness for form’, meaning that there are no contra- standard features and that there are variable features indicative of function- ality; (ii) perceiving simplicity or elegance, meaning that most features are ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01hxf2a3zy559e7js6yw4h8hnw)) > standard and few variable or contra-standard; or (iii) perceiving visual tension, meaning that some salient features are contra-standard, although they actu- ally contribute to realizing the item’s function. Functional variability entails that there are typically few or no standard and contra-standard features of a functionally categorized artefact ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01hxf2afvzy1bb4spqpg1p13z6)) > Therefore, knowledge of functions of, say, corkscrews cannot, in itself, trigger perceptions of simplicity or elegance nor lead to perceptions of visual tension. Perceptions of ‘fitness for form’ can only be grounded in variable [features that are, somehow, indicative of functionality](https://readwise.io/reader/document_raw_content/171762862/#bookmark27) ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01hxf2bw89kzgyh9cqet97w1fm)) > However, in terms of contributive capacities, all objects in a broad functional category are equally function-realizing. Thus, there is no ground for regarding as (more) cor- rect aesthetic appreciation that is based on perceptions of one object in such a category as more fit-for-purpose – and thus more functionally beautiful – than another. Winged corkscrews are as functional as air-pump corkscrews; both possess variable features indicative of their functionality ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01hxf2d1jcd04nx5rq0c8fw9bx)) > [Thus, appreciating a winged corkscrew as more beautiful than an air-pump, or per- ceiving visual tension in the appearance of a new type of corkscrew may in- deed be explained by sets of function-based expectations, but the latter may in turn be a product of prior exposure. An fb account along these lines may still explain acts of appreciation,](https://readwise.io/reader/document_raw_content/171762862/#bookmark11)5 or ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01hxf2enpx3bh3vb56km8nkdh1)) > If such narrow categories are taken as the basis for distinguishing features – as per Parsons’ and Carlson’s account – or as triggering expectations – as per Sauchelli’s account – other problems emerge. For one thing, this leaves no privileged role for function-realizing features, or for Anna G’s shape as real- izing its function, in appropriate appreciation ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01hxf2hbf873cm0cgd5jwh8ryw)) > [This saddles fb accounts with the task of identifying functional catego- ries that are neither too broad nor too narrow, so that functional variability is sufficiently curtailed without disappearing altogether. It may be possible to find such categories](https://readwise.io/reader/document_raw_content/171762862/#bookmark12)6 – ‘winged corkscrew’ may be suitable, unlike ‘corkscrew’ or ‘Anna G corkscrew’. Function theories would, for such categories, offer adequately supported function ascriptions. However, they do not identify suit- able categories, provide reasons for maintaining that there are such categories for each technical artefact, or offer grounds for considering evaluations trig- gered by such categories as capturing something more significant than evalua- tions triggered by broader or narrower categories ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01hxf2jx0r8ya06dyzdy52ne45)) > This accommodation of artefact flexibility complicates claims that function- based appreciation is (exclusively) correct and compromises attempts to make fb accounts meet ‘Selectivity’. Generally, grounding appreciation in function ascriptions risks being sensitive to a kind of evaluative retrofitting: for what- ever one appreciates in an artefact, a context can be imagined in which the item has the function to which the appreciated features contribute. ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01hxf2pg8cex44r93p55fetk8k)) > Many items no longer have their original proper function, or no longer realize it in current circumstances; think of plate armour after it had become largely cer- emonial, or portable cassette players once production of cassette tapes ended ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01hxf2q2mmcqnksk7pn7efr6jq)) > Without a criterion to distinguish between these varieties of function-based appreciation – grounded in vari- ous kinds of function ascriptions – fb accounts risk becoming non-selective. Conversely, selecting only some kinds of ascriptions as grounding appropriate appreciation resolves the problem by fiat or some implicit criterion that is not itself grounded in function theories, making it unclear to what extent, if any, an fb account may be said to build on a theory of artefact functions; if an im- plicit criterion is needed, one may wonder whether this, rather than any of the function theories, does the conceptual work. ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01hxf2r34yksenp05ny3v35eqc)) > As indicated in §3, all function theories have trouble fully accommodating malfunctioning. One may expect similar difficulties for fb accounts, either in- herited from a specific function theory or, more generally, reflecting the sheer diversity of malfunctioning phenomena. Here, I illustrate the latter, by sketch- ing how malfunctioning presents several interlocked complications that fb ac- counts would need to navigate. > For function theories, the primary problems are posed by types of artefacts that are structurally incapable of performing their proper functions well (‘type malfunctioning’), or even at all (‘phantom functions’). However, even malfunc- tioning tokens create complications for fb accounts. To see why, suppose that Linda has managed to dislocate both wings of her Anna G corkscrew. How- ever, she has sufficient experience in using T-shaped corkscrews to still use the corkscrew effectively for opening bottles; the dislocated wings may be a slight impediment, but she has learned to deal with this by changing her grip ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01hxf2tc1668k5yspm6cvfc0p9)) > These three options not only support different aesthetic judgements, but they also offer different ‘aesthetic directives’: if Linda would modify her dam- aged Anna G corkscrew to make it more like a T-shaped corkscrew, its beauty would be further compromised on the first option, and improved on the sec- ond, whereas the third would be indifferent. The complication for fb accounts is that they need to prefer one option over the others in order to meet ‘Se- lectivity’, and that they need to do so on principled grounds in order to meet ‘Correctness ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01hxf2w8kcnk5jfj628vrsy3f3)) > [Moving to type malfunctioning, suppose that Anna G corkscrews, because of their structural capacities, perform their proper function poorly, also in com- parison to other types of corkscrews. Again, this forces fb theorists to make a choice regarding the repercussions for appreciation of Anna G. One option is to ignore the comparative lack of functionality. This is suggested by Parsons and Carlson in their discussion of high-heeled shoes and other fashion items, when they write “… we simply ‘bracket’ or neglect the item’s utilitarian function altogether, appreciating instead its more formal aspects” (2008, 110). On this option, an fb account would explain positive appreciation, but not negative, and would thus fail to meet ‘Polarity’.](https://readwise.io/reader/document_raw_content/171762862/#bookmark16)10 Another option is to take into account the lack of utility in the act of appreciation. Then, however, the relevant func- tional category or expectation base for appreciation must be broad enough to encompass both the types that realize a broadly characterized function and the type that performs poorly ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01hxf2xxmyvmz2sxhd0twwwy0r)) > In terms of Parsons and Carlson’s modes, malfunctioning types therefore cannot be per- ceived as inelegant, or possessing ‘visual tension’, which leaves only ‘looking- fit-for-purpose’ (or some unspecified additional mode) and its appeal to variable features indicative of functionality. One might think that malfunctioning types could, conversely, look unfit-for-purpose, having variable features indicative of their dysfunctionality; but in fact, many do not: they may have no features that visibly interfere with their function. On the contrary: Anna G might be a bad corkscrew, but it still has a pointed tip, wings and other variable features (within the category of corkscrews) that are indicative of functionality. ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01hxf2yepgw6fj1wbr2e9zmka0)) > [phantom-functional items do not wear their lack of functionality on their sleeve: most have features that are indicative of functionality, and few features that betray dysfunctionality – the commercial success of bug zappers and other such artefacts may be partly due to this. Therefore, it seems empirically incorrect to maintain that they ‘look unfit’, and that their uselessness would thereby ground negative appreciation. Alternatively, one may deny that phantom-functional items can be categorized as items of the functional category at all, i.e., reject that bug zappers have the function to reduce the local mosquito population, and that Howard Hughes’ Spruce Goose was an airplane – contrary to the function theories that were constructed to respect these function ascriptions.](https://readwise.io/reader/document_raw_content/171762862/#bookmark17)11 This would reverse the or- der of priority envisaged in fb accounts: one’s theory of functions would need to be developed or considerably modified on the basis of intuitions regarding appropriate appreciation ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01hxf320dh38qyj7d2p3x0j5x5)) > Functions and the Aesthetics of Technical Artefacts Wybo Houkes ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01hxex68ft6y228sn280q7fkt1)) ## New highlights added October 30, 2025 at 3:31 PM > in concepts that are evidently unrelated, is analytically inelegant, conceptu- ally more convoluted or less informative than an account that analyses both in terms of the same or closely related concepts. ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01k8tpcs39g3gvdy21c5k71yma))