Instrumental vs symbolic value of objects: the boundary between design and art
A good hammer is valuable because it is useful, and not because it is well designed. Wait a minute. You might say, “Isn’t it useful because it was designed that way?” Yes, it was designed to be useful, but it’s valuable not because it was designed, but because it is useful. In other words, it would be valuable even if it wasn’t designed, and yet it was somehow, by accident, useful.
Assuming that the value or meaning of the object is derived from its usefulness and not from the fact that it was designed, there isn’t an immutable link between an object’s original design and its actual value.
But how about the Magic Mouse by Apple or Philippe Starck’s lemon squeezer? Aren’t those objects of design valuable because they were designed, rather than because of their actual usefulness? Philippe Starck’s lemon squeezer is objectively worse at squeezing lemons than a $2 alternative, but still sells for hundreds of dollars.
It is because these objects hold symbolic, aesthetic, or cultural value. In this case, design is not a vehicle for utility, but for meaning or status. These items function more like art than tools.
Their worth is derived from:
- Aesthetic appeal (beauty or form)
- Provenance (who designed them)
- Cultural capital (possession of one signals taste or wealth)
- Collectibility (like art, their rarity or origin boosts their worth)
But what does it all mean?
At the heart of it, it’s about the boundary between design and art: when does an object stop being a designed thing and start becoming a piece of art — the distinction between instrumental value and symbolic or aesthetic value, and the often misunderstood relationship between design intent and actual value.
A hammer is valuable because it is useful, not because it was designed. This gets at instrumental value — the kind of value derived from what an object does, not from what it is. A rock that happens to be good at hammering nails might be just as valuable as a crafted hammer, even if it wasn’t “designed.” The design is merely a pathway to usefulness, not the source of value itself.
On the other hand, symbolic or aesthetic value is derived from something else. A Starck’s juicer is valuable because it represents something, not because it provides utility well.
Instrumental vs symbolic value of design
So we end up with two distinct pathways to value:
- Instrumental Value → Design serves usefulness (e.g., hammers, apps, bicycles) and becomes tool
Symbolic Value → Design serves meaning (e.g., art pieces, fashion, collectibles) and becomes art
Now here it where things get complex. Some objects of design straddle both worlds:
- A designer lamp that gives terrible light but looks stunning.
- A fashion garment that’s nearly unwearable but seen as high art.
- A museum piece like the Starck juicer, which functions as both a consumer object and a sculpture.
For these kind of objects, even though designed, their primary value is symbolic. They carry the form of design and the function of art. Like the iPhone, which is both highly useful and a cultural symbol.
The key takeaway
Design is not inherently valuable — it’s valuable when it produces usefulness or meaning. And these are two very different currencies of value.
- A hammer is valuable because it works.
- A Starck juicer is valuable because it represents something.
When usefulness drops away, and meaning becomes the primary currency, we’re no longer in the realm of practical design — we’re entering the domain of design-as-art or conceptual design. This tension — between design as problem-solving and design as expression — is central to many debates in modern design discourse. It’s why Dieter Rams despised overly ornamental objects, and why others celebrate them.