Dynamics

Dynamics is a study of moving objects. More often than not, many objects designed to move fail or break down either in structure or performance because they are often analyzed statically instead of being studied in motion. This is highly problematic because the action in which they were designed to make is often repeated over and over. In the dynamics class I took, we tend to oversimplify moving systems of objects and compromise their innate beauty by looking at a single snapshot of a problem in order to make problems more easily solvable. While this is helpful in completing the mathematical side of the problem, simplifying a system teaches engineers to design all sorts of solutions that also carry this uncomplicated and often unattractive falseness in real-world situations.

There is an old expression which states that form should follow function, and in dynamics, function is king. The idea stems from engineers just wanting things to work correctly rather than look pretty. Engineers spend so much time on trying to keep an object from breaking that the appearance of the object rarely comes into play. Although function over form holds true in many applications, I felt that there must be a way to overcome this traditional way of thinking and find a balance between the two seemingly opposing ideas. Why can’t the design of an object achieve both physical beauty and possess usefulness in fulfilling its designed purpose? The study of dynamic systems inspired me to find a way to harmonize form and function into a single unit (where neither is more important or overpowering) and apply it to everything I create and design.

Balance in Design

Finding this balance of form and function is easy enough to talk about, but it is difficult to execute. I think the best example of when this comes into play in my work as a design student involves creating a logo. A logo needs to have a solid form that embodies the idea of a company or person as well as being functional on different levels—or in this case different sizes. It needs to be designed with just that right amount of cleverness to leave a lasting impression but not too complicated where the viewer is left confused about what is going on.

Besides during the creation of logos, the balance of form and function plays an important role during the process of selecting or producing a typeface. Sure every font has some sort of associated purpose that comes from designers seeing the letters in action in other work, but as a person looking to find a balance between form and function, a font such as Helvetica doesn’t have to appear in highly corporate designs only. Any typeface has the ability to be altered to fit almost any purpose within reason and this ability stems from the typeface having a strong balance of form and function. If each letter on its own is well thought out, making sure that every curve and stroke are built for a specific reason, and then the whole font will inherit the ability to adapt to multiple projects. Perhaps I should be clearer about when I say any typeface. Some fonts have no business being used at all because their design holds such a unique build that leans so heavily on the form side—leaving very little room for function. Fonts with these characteristics can be described much more simply; they are hard to read.

Statics

Before a student gets into the thick of being an engineer, a course called Graphics for Engineers teaches that our own handwriting is ugly and presumably hard to read, just like a bad typeface. One of the major concepts taught in this class is a particularly troublesome way to form each and every letter with perfectly straight vertical and horizontal lines, circular arcs and single with strokes. Also, they are only to be constructed as uppercase letters. It was so highly stressed that engineering students and professionals write this way that even the dynamics class I took much later would take points off of homework when answers and labels were not constructed in this manner. Instead of having a balance here, function was the only factor considered, much like the standard way of thinking about engineering problems. All individual form was stripped away leaving nothing but the skeleton of what letters can be. This left me feeling dehumanized, which I suppose I would have been okay with, but the moment I realized that dynamics was only teaching me to think statically, I had to find some other way to achieve balance I believe to be necessary.

Even though Dynamics teaches how to analyze objects that are in constant motion or steadily changing, many of the problems addressed only seemed to become solvable when we stripped the objects down to their very bare and simple parts. I learned from real-world observations that much of what we accurately calculate on paper is often just a rough estimate that almost seems good for nothing. These “close enough” answers are weighted on the function side of the scale, instead of including any of the complexity of the form that significantly change how an object behaves while moving. This imbalance left me wanting more from the type of work I would be committing my life to; now that I have found something to study that lets me utilize this balance of form and function, I am much more satisfied. I have found my equilibrium.