Third Reflection

Based on the lecture and discussion in class, the progression of technology is complicated and difficult to predict. In the instance of the bicycle, the original design is deviated from for social reasons, despite being a less effecient device. Once the social necessity for the bike vanished or became obsolete, so did the bike from mainstream culture, and the design reverted back to something much closer to Da Vinci’s original.

This illustrates an interesting phenomenon in technology, where function can take a backseat to form and aesthetic value. Being able to discern between technologies that are used for form rather than function is a useful skill, and is similar in nature to media literacy. By being skeptical of technologies and determining which values they favor more, form or function, we can wade through technology that exists purely for superficial reasons and technology that most effeciently handles a specific task. This element becomes more complicated, however, in certain circumstances. Returning to bicycles, an example would be bicycles that adhere to Da Vinci’s original design, however are also stylized or otherwise decorated for aesthetic value, such as the cruisers one might see around campus. While the device itself exists in it’s most effecient form, there are many derivations which appeal to varying social perspectives.

A student getting across campus doesn’t need a racing bike, and a bicycle racer would not likely want to use a cruiser. This sort of adaptation diversifies the use of a particular technology, however also forces us to ask another question about existing technology we see – if a technology does appeal to form rather than function, has the technology reached it’s most effecient point where variation is purely superficial, or has the form of the technology so overridden the function that it has lost effeciency?