 |
| Greek Culture in South Italy Krater 370-360 BC glazed terracotta Cleveland Museum of Art, Ohio |
 |
| Roman Empire Unguentarium 1st-2nd century AD blown glass Princeton University Art Museum |
 |
| Anonymous Dutch Maker Goblet (Façon de Venise) 17th century blown glass Chrysler Museum of Art, Norfolk, Virginia |
 |
| Johann Paul Schor (designer) Side Table ca. 1670 carved, gessoed and gilt poplar, made in Rome Getty Museum, Los Angeles |
 |
| Jacob van der Kool Jar ca. 1695-1700 faience Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam |
 |
| Anonymous Chinese Maker Vase 18th century cameo glass Chrysler Museum of Art, Norfolk, Virginia |
 |
| Vanessa Bell for Omega Workshops Plate ca. 1915 glazed earthenware Milwaukee Art Museum |
 |
| Marcel Breuer Lattenstuhl 1923 oak, cotton, iron Milwaukee Art Museum |
 |
| Émile-Antoine Bourdelle Door Knocker (Head of Medusa) 1925 bronze Minneapolis Institute of Art |
 |
| Ruth Asawa Untitled 1946 copper Milwaukee Art Museum |
 |
| Christian Dior Pin 1950 metal (costume jewelry) Indianapolis Museum of Art |
 |
| Bernard Leach Vase ca. 1962 earthenware Milwaukee Art Museum |
 |
| Elsa Peretti Covered Tureen ca. 1986-90 silver Cleveland Museum of Art |
 |
| Warren MacKenzie Platter ca. 1991 glazed ceramic Minneapolis Institute of Art |
 |
| Philippe Starck Walla-Walla Wall Sconce 1993 molded plastic Art Institute of Chicago |
 |
| Katō Tsubusa Low-sided Vessel 2002 porcelain Minneapolis Institute of Art |
"Why cannot we simply ignore the intended use of an object and judge whether its form is beautiful in complete independence from its utility? And why should our distress at disutility be so great as to block any other pleasure we might take in an object? The answer to this question, at least for Kant and most other eighteenth-century thinkers, is simply that the human mind is inherently teleological – that is, it is natural for us to seek purposes and to find them wherever we can, and to be frustrated when we cannot find them where we think we should be able to do so but to be gratified when we do, and all the more gratified when we succeed in finding purposes where we would have thought we couldn't. In fact, we are particularly frustrated when we fail to find purposiveness where we expect to, although not noticeably pleased when we do find it where we expect to, while when we find it where we do not expect to, we are noticeably pleased, although when we do not find it where we do not expect to find it, we are not noticeably displeased. This set of assumptions would explain the relationship that we find between the perception of utility and of beauty: where we judge the object is ill-adapted to its intended use, our frustration at that is so great as to block other potential pleasures in the object, such as pleasure in the beauty of its form; but where an object is well-adapted to its intended use or other purpose, we pretty much take that for granted, and need an additional element such as beauty of form to take an especially noticeable pleasure in it. . . . In other words, the suitability of an object's appearance to its intended use is a necessary condition for our finding the object beautiful, even if finding it beautiful is not reducible to finding its form suitable to its use. Beauty is not identical to utility, but where an object should have utility, then its utility is a necessary condition for its beauty."
– Paul Guyer, Beauty and Utility in Eighteenth-Century Aesthetics (Eighteenth-Century Studies, vol. 35, no. 3, Spring 2002)
 |
| Acheulean Culture (Paleolithic France) Bifaced Hand Axes 700,000-200,000 BC flint or quartzite Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York |