The Evolution of Useful Things

The Evolution of Useful Things Review

I always used to find the archeological sections of museums like the Met in NYC terribly uninteresting. I’m not talking about the sections with mummies and tombs (those are pretty cool). I’m talking about the endless corridors with ancient pots, utensils, tips of spears, and so on. Once you’ve seen a spear, you’ve seen all, right? Going through halls and halls full of mundane, often broken artifacts, was just never appealing to me. Visiting local artisans when traveling used to elicit a similar response. Sure, seeing how a blanket is weaved is kind of interesting, but the process seemed to repetitive and monotonous that it was not naturally appealing to me.

A (brief) theory of interesting

This started changing after I took a class at MIT called “How to make (almost) anything” (my favorite class ever). As the title suggests, the class teaches you how to make almost anything. Every class was a 3 hour deep-dive into a manufacturing process, from composites, to computer controlled cutting (CNC), to 3D printing, and more. The more I learned about the minutieae of an industrial process, the more I appreciated the complexity hidden behind every day objects. Especially after trying my hand at it.

A pot is more than a clump of clay - it is the result of a long process of design, manufacturing, and supply chain logistics that delivers a functional object at a reasonable price point. It might look mundane and ordinary, but someone somewhere had to design it, setup an industrial process to manufacture it, establish a supply chain to source its materials and deliver it. Not to mention all the commercial complexity hidden behind any market object (a marketing team that thought about how to name it, package it, price it; a sales team that got it to the store where you bought it; a finance team managing the cash flow of the company, and so on).

The thing is we don’t usually see all that hidden complexity, we just see the object in front of us. Usually these objects are commonplace, so we have learned to take them for granted and so they fail to capture our attention. When an object captures our attention it is usually because its novel or looks like magic. But even with new pieces of technology, once you look beneath the surface, the most impressive thing is the underlying complexity you get to ignore thanks to the hard work of so many people.

Uncovering this complexity, though, requires knowledge of it. Now, since you can go about your life without having to know about this underlying complexity, you may go about not finding regular objects or even the most advanced ones, interesting. But once you understand the hidden challenges and complexities behind making an object, it is hard not to find even the most mundane one interesting. An object is the resolution of interests pulling in different directions, a solution to an intricate puzzle of constraints ranging from the monetary to the technical to the aesthethic. The resulting object is just but the output of this challenge, but only one of many outputs. Along the way, many more objects where created to make this one possible, from failed prototypes, to functional molds.

But all of this escapes the untrained eye. You do not see the underlying complexity, but the result of it. And therefore, if the object in itself is not interesting to you, you will not stop and appreciate it. If you are very much into pots, then you can have an intrinsic appreciation of it. But if you don’t, then the best way to grow an interest in the topic is to learn more about it. The more you know about something, the more surface area there is to find angles from which you can hook your interest. For some, this might be the economic side of it. For others it might be the historical side. For others, the technical side.

But again, this requires some base knowledge and curiosity.

I’m a curious person by nature, but curiosity needs a trigger and the mundane is usually not a trigger on its own. So what makes it interesting? Being curious about it? Or appreciating the hidden complexity behind it? What makes the object interesting? It can be interesting because it is extra-ordinary, it can be interesting because you find that particular type of object interesting (for example, car lovers will be intrinsically interested in cars), or it can be interesting because you understand the hidden complexity behind it. Perhaps I find it interesting because I find the complexity interesting. Perhaps another explanation for what makes something interesting is just finding an angle for it that you find interesting. You must find an angle for the object or subject that speaks to you. Perhaps for me this is knowing how its made and all the challenges behind it (after all, I am a product person). But for others, the interesting thing might be the price of the object, the aesthetic, who owns it, its family history, etc.

So what makes things interesting? I guess it is about finding something that speaks to you. But I do think that the more you know about the object’s history (how it was designed, manufactured, what tradeoffs had to be made, etc) the more likely you are to find something that speaks to you and hooks you.

Maybe what makes objects or subjects interesting is an appreciation of this underlying complexity. Take a paper clip. For most people, it is not a particularly interesting object. It is just a piece of cobbled wire, we’ve seen a ton of them, and there is nothing particularly exciting about them. Part of the lack of excitement or interest in the paper clip is that it is so commonplace that we just take it for granted. Part of it could also be that in a digital world, a contraption to hold paper together can be seen as a dying technology and why invest time in pursuing a dying technology. But I think the main reason why we don’t marvel at it is because we don’t know anything about it other than how to use it. For the most part, we ignore its origin and evolution. Once you learn about it, it can be a fascinating subject and this is precisely the effect of reading ‘The evolution of everyday things’.

It might well be, however, that for some people even knowing all of this will not make the paper clip interesting. But I guess for me, the more I learn about something, the more interesting it becomes. It;s like a flywheel of curiosity feeding curiosity. I guess that’s what it is for me. Learning more about something opens up the surface area of potential questions you can ask, potential directions you can take it, potential rabbit holes you can go down through.

“The Evolution of Useful Things” is precisely the kind of book that can give you a repertoire of this kind of hidden knowledge for every day objects, and thus increase your appreciation for the history of design behind every day things.

For example, you learn how the knive and fork got their modern shape be evolving from sticks to pierce meat to two pronged forks to avoid meat from rotating, to thick knives that acted more like spatulas, all the way to their present form.

You also learn how the paper clip evolved through time, from a pin to pierce through papers, through several iterations that both improved its functionality but also facilitated its mass production.

You learn how the post its came to be, evolving from a sand paper technology to their modern form.

You also learn how the can evolved from a

I’m not going to delve too deep into these topics. Petroski does a good job of providing detailed explanaions of those evolutionary changes, though I wish someone would turn it into an animation. If you’re curious about them, I encourage you to read the book.

After reading the book, you both get a better sense of appreciation for the design of every day objects we take for granted. You see them in their historical and evolutionary perspective. This opens your eyes to their rich history, but also to their many deficiencies that you might not have even noticed.

The point of the book is not to give you a list of random fun facts, though. Rather it is to use this history of evolution of every day objects to illustrate a theory of invention that holdes that want, rather than need, is what drives innovation.

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.

https://www.officemuseum.com/paper_clips.htm