Form vs. Function

[The Meat man]

Both matter to me, but I place more value on function over aesthetics.

[Sharp Guy]

I chose both. I won't own a knife that's not functional (for me). I also won't buy knives that I think are ugly no matter how functional they are.

[Xplorer]

For me, whether purchasing or designing a knife function is always first. As I see it, the function of the knife IS the knife and any efforts to make it look nice should be secondary to the functional aspects of the design.
But once a knife becomes a part of my collection, choosing which highly functional knife I want to carry for the day often comes down to aesthetics. I can't ignore the fact that I get a degree of satisfaction (maybe pride sometimes too) from carrying a nice looking knife.

So, if I have to prioritize or pick one it's easy...I voted function.
Luckily, I don't really have to choose, so in daily life it's both..always both. :D

[The Deacon]

Carry Spydercos almost exclusively, and consider all the models I carry to be well designed for function. I'll occasionally carry a one that strongly favors function over aesthetics, like an FRN Stretch but have a strong preference for those that are both functional and good looking to the point of being worthy of the label "functional jewelry". I can attest to the fact that every one of the knives shown below is just as functional as their FRN counterparts while bringing a much bigger :D to my face.

[bearfacedkiller]

The goal is to find a design that melds the two. It helps when you have an eye for the practical. I appreciate a utilitarian look.

Is a Glock as refined aesthetically as a nice 1911? No, not at all. Do I like how Glocks look? I sure do and I don’t know why. I find that a lot of Spydies have that utilitarian beauty due to their pragmatic design.

I also don’t care what others think of my knives so I kind of look past or see through exotic materials. Some folks get really into the CF and Damascus and other materials that are primarily aesthetic.

[kennethsime]

I voted function, as that matters first when it comes to a knife.

I think the beauty of Spyderco knives is that their aesthetics come from function. The Spyder-hump, for example, appears ugly to many unacquainted knife buyers. But the more you use the round hole, the more you come to appreciate the hump in the blade, for enabling a more comfortable opening mechanism.

So, I choose both, but form follows function.

[anycal]

On one hand, I am not able to handle all the knives Spyderco makes, so it is impossible to know how some will function.

On the other hand, there are a lot of options. Other than some specialty purpose designed cutting tools, there are generally few models within any given functional design. Why would anyone pick the ugly one :D

edit: When I was shopping for my first Spyderco, I narrowed it down to two models. On paper, they were what I was looking for. Not being able to handle either of them, I chose the one which appealed to me more - form.

[SubMicron]

Function.

Safe one handed opening and closing is mandatory and many brands achieve this to some degree.

Then I look at where I'll use it which influences the size. I'll then consider how I'll use it and what I'll be cutting which influences the steel choice.

These few things alone typically reduce the available selection to various Spyderco models.

[sal]

Hi BigHonu,

Welcome to our forum.

sal

[Water Bug]

For me, I'll take function over aesthetics any day of the week.

[JD Spydo]

I voted for "Function" out of the selections. However I would be somewhat of a liar if I said that "looks" played no part what so ever in my choices.

But superb function is ultimately what drew me to Spyderco's great products to begin with. A lot of these so-called "Knife Purists" like the ones you see and talk to at shows have told me on several occasions that they think that Spyderco's trademark "SpyderHole" is ugly in their sight. To me I like the fact that you can deploy most Spyderco folders even faster than most automatics ( switchblades) because of the SpyderHole. Which is another trait of function to be sure.

The ergonomic splendor of models like the C-60 Ayoob, Spyderhawk and Temperance 1 models also factor into my love of the Spyderco brand. But ultimately I deem the "function factor" to take priority in most cases.

[senorsquare]

I had to vote for liking both but if it came down to one or the other then function always wins, I have no use for knives that are pretty but aren't useful. There is beauty in function, but I definitely prefer to also like the looks too, why not?

Sums it up for me. It has to be visually appealing, but also has to be superbly functional.

[Bloke]

There’s a trade off for everything.

As pocket knives go as long as there’s a happy balance of both form and function, I’m pretty happy. :)

[Naperville]

Both matter to me, but I place much more value on function. What you have to remember is that some (like myself) seek the ability to thrust and cut/slice. If one of those elements is missing or not represented, then the knife will be passed by. After thrust and cut/slice ability is found to be there in spades, then and only then does it have to be visually appealing to me.

I can and do often use serrated butter knives to open boxes. I do not seek a specialized tool to open boxes. I'm always on the lookout for an excellent offensive or defensive weapon though.

[Tgmr05]

Function over aesthetics, otherwise may not purchase something that seems different initially. The first spyderco I bought was a se dragonfly in aus8. Seemed a little odd looking initially, but it sure won me over. Too many folks talked about how well they worked, so I tried one.

Now, as function becomes less of an unknown, I tend to try what catches my eye, or what intrigues me more.

[Christian Noble]

I believe we are lucky to live in a time, for the most part, where we can consider aesthetics, really art to a certain extent, when it comes to what we carry in a knife.

In yesteryear, almost all would say function first and foremost; and demand that of the blacksmith as it would likely be a tool for one's livelihood. Now that very few make a livelihood with a blade, the demand is not there for function, so many makers add aesthetics to get the sale.

Love my Spydies for their blend of function, simplicity and overall practicality. Said it before, kudos for Spyderco listening to market -- Waterway is perfect example of that.

Function all the way for me, who cares what it looks like as long as it works. Although my 16 year old and I rit dyed his Salt 2 Wharncliffe tonight - so what do I know? ;-)

[standy99]

All Spyderco’s function, but there are a lot of forms I wouldn’t buy and twice as many that I would buy.

Delica,GB1 PM2 and Parra 3 and pacific Salt. Is my bland style :D

[Evil D]

I feel like this topic has a kind of peer pressure involved....because someone out there is buying those wild damascus/jewel encrusted knives and they never use them, so surely someone out there does value form/aesthetics over function at least some of the time. I've seen some customs that are pretty impressive from a build quality and material perspective that would probably be horrible to use (no sense in calling out any brand/maker here, I'm sure we've all seen them). Those knives obviously have a market or nobody would make them. As an artist myself, I can appreciate almost anything that's designed to just be admired, so I'm not exactly bashing those who buy and enjoy knives like this, but at the same time I feel like people are almost embarrassed to admit that they like and buy those knives.

[Evil D]

All Spyderco’s function, but there are a lot of forms I wouldn’t buy and twice as many that I would buy.

Delica,GB1 PM2 and Parra 3 and pacific Salt. Is my bland style :D

What's also funny to me about this topic is how many times I've heard people say Spyderco's are ugly in general. Beauty is definitely subjective.



There's also a gray area at times. Look at the Executive with the dinosaur bone handle, any of the Kopas/Kiwis with the inlways, they're all just as functional as any other Spyderco but have the beauty to go with it.

[Mushroom]

I feel like this topic has a kind of peer pressure involved....because someone out there is buying those wild damascus/jewel encrusted knives and they never use them, so surely someone out there does value form/aesthetics over function at least some of the time. I've seen some customs that are pretty impressive from a build quality and material perspective that would probably be horrible to use (no sense in calling out any brand/maker here, I'm sure we've all seen them). Those knives obviously have a market or nobody would make them. As an artist myself, I can appreciate almost anything that's designed to just be admired, so I'm not exactly bashing those who buy and enjoy knives like this, but at the same time I feel like people are almost embarrassed to admit that they like and buy those knives.

BINGO! You nailed it.

This whole question is kind of redundant in my opinion and the answers have gone exactly how I would have expected. Everyone wants to claim they make the most efficient choices in life and nothing they do is frivolous but yet they have more than a dozen high quality pocket knives in their possession. Why is that? "Oh, because they each function differently" - No! Because the FORM has changed!

I've noticed a mentality over the past few years, that collecting knives is bad and you're only a good knife owner if you hardcore use the knife. Its like admitting that you want a knife just because you like the way it looks is wrong. (It's not )

Sure, people can justify buying all those different knives by claiming each one does something different and "functions" better but in reality the difference in FORM is the biggest attractant to these different designs. People don't buy things that they don't like and if someone doesn't like the way a knife looks, they keep looking until they find one they do like! (The Caribbean is a PERFECT example of this!)