The Evolution of Useful Things
The Evolution of Useful Things
I recently finished reading the Evolution of Useful things. The book is a theory of invention, illustrated with a number of fun examples of the evolution of every day objects, from eating utensils, to beer cans, to post it notes, to the paper clip.
For example, did you know the paper clip started as a paper pin?
I won’t go into the details of each of these objects evolution in here (Petroski gives a very detailed account of them in the book and I encourage you to read it if you’re interested in learning more about them). Instead, I’ll provide a brief overview of the theory of invention he advances which I found compelling.
Wants, not need, is the mother of invention
Form follows function failure
In design theory, functionalism is the view that form follows function. The whole premise of the book is that this not the case. Instead, the book argues that form follows failure and uses the history of eating utensils, paper clips, and more everyday objects, to illustrate how this is the case.
New inventions are not the result of unmet needs as much as of new wants. Luxury, rather than necessity, is the mother of invention.
There is no single function for an object to perform, and there is no single form. The history of objects we take for granted is evidence of this. No object is made in a vacum. Most things respond to their pre-decessors and improve them. The process of invention is evolutionary, not creationary.
Inventor as critic
“The concept of function in design, and even the doctrine of functionalism, might be worth a little attention if things ever worked. It is, however, obvious they do not.” (Pye)
Ubiquitous imperfection is the common feature of all made objects. This feature is what drives the evolution of things.
Compromise implies a degree of failure. The shape of all things is the product of arbitrary choice. Therefore, since there are always tradeoffs in one direction, you can always improve the product either by adjusting the tradeoff in the sacrificed directions or by dissolving the tradeoffs through new technology.
A (short) theory of interesting
When I was a kid, I used to load going to museums. I remember being dragged to a Picasso exhibition by my parents and complaining that I could draw better than him. Or being dragged through archeological exhibits being bored about just looking at remnants of what used to be utensils but are just little stones. Likewise with classical music - I would dread going to concerts with my dad. Funny enough, these are some of my favorite activities nowadays. I think in big part because I’ve grown to appreciate them.
With art, my turning point I believe was a class I took in middle school. The professor was very strict and made us memorize names of artists, but she also taught us the difference between them, their schools, and she taught us to see a painting. My mother reinforced those learnings whenever we visited museums, she could explain the different styles and why they’re important. With classical music a similar thing happened. The most my dad explained it, the more I naturally started enjoying it.
I’ve had similar experiences happen with certain foods. I guess the whole range of ‘acquired foods’ is an excercise in developing a taste, but also in learning to appreciate certain things that might not be visible for the untrained eye (or palate).
Likewise with sports. I’m not a fan, but when I watch a game of football or tennis with someone who knows and explains the subleties of the game, I become more interested and engaged.
In giving a detailed history of so many objects, the book gives you