Parts and Functions

Parts are concrete. Functions are abstract. In recitation I attempted to draw a water bottle, a USB drive, and a chalk holder without looking at the paper I was drawing on. The results: images that looked nothing like the actual things I was trying to portray. Sure there might have been some similar shapes, but far from any accurate drawing. No scale, no symmetry, no concrete similarities. If I showed the pictures to someone else, they would have no idea what that object was. I think the more patience you have the more "in the zone" you can be. I have little patience with anything artistic, but I'm sure if I was locked in a room for an hour and had to come up with a drawing of something without looking at it I could do it.

I liked the "thinking without seeing" exercise more than the "seeing without thinking" one. When I started my gozinto diagram for a bicycle I went from big picture to little picture. I ended up with a whooping twenty-six sub-components, sub-sub components, up to sub-sub-sub-sub-sub components all together. Once I did the diagram again with only 6 components I thought of the essential elements that make up a bike: frame, wheels, handlebars, gears, brake, and tires. Notice that does not include pedals or a seat (opps). When drawing a diagram of functions a bike should perform I thought of four: stable with motion, steering system, support person, and speed control. I thought of these and then thought of parts that correspond to each of these functions, such as shock absorption, handlebars, frame, and brake, gears, and pedals, respective to the above functions. I think the functions are more important than the parts, but the parts are needed for the functions.