Just read a very interesting bit on the age old 'form follows function' debate. instead of concentrating on the 'follows' aspect, the author (Jan Michl) has concentrated on the 'function' aspect of the dictum, and whether anything can really function without an already existing form. He raises some interesting points, particularly when looking at how in nature a form exists before any function is an issue:

"According to this theory, small incidental variations in the physical and behavioral makeup of offspring of the same litter produce variations in their ability to adapt to a particular habitat. The individuals that happen to be better adapted to the particular environment have more chance, through no effort of their own, to survive to adulthood and have offspring, which inherit the advantageous variations; these offspring in turn are exposed to the further pressure of natural selection. The specific habitat functions as the selecting factor, while inheritance accumulates the selected, i.e. advantageous, variations. In this way, in the course of generations, design-like adaptations slowly develop."

However, I still feel that the 'form follows function' expresses well an idea that all designers should work by, i.e. to design with the purpose of the object/ building/ image/ text in mind, and to include only aesthetic/structural features that will generally aid the usefulness of the finished article. It's an interesting read anyway!

here's the link - http://janmichl.com/eng.fff-hai.html