There are perhaps three ways of looking at furniture: some people see it as purely functional and useful, and don’t bother themselves with aesthetics; others see it as essential to civilized living and concern themselves with design and how the furniture will look in a room – in other words, function combined with aesthetics; and yet others see furniture as a form of art.

In the past, designers of furniture usually worked for royalty, the nobility, landowners and rich merch ants and so were not constrained by the limits of space, economy, or even practicality that inhibit the contemporary designer. Indeed, function was not the first consideration and interiors did not always have to be practical. In the Renaissance, for example, fine furniture and interiors were designed to show off not only the riches of the owners, but their learning, wisdom and good taste as well. No doubt, this attitude still exists among a number of the wealthy.

Apart from a brief period in the 20th century when furniture designers mistook themselves for artists and sculptors, producing, say, chairs that were nice to look at, but impossible to sit on comfortably, modern designers have, for the most part, come to terms with the funcllonal aspect of furniture. These days, a
well-designed interior must be practical and exclude what is unnecessary. Limited space must be used imaginatively, and a sense of space and clarity is needed as a setting for efficient living. Therefore, in the modern home, furniture should fulfil a specific purpose, and need as little care and attention as possible.
In addition to this, costs must be kept to a minimum because, these days, there are many luxuries competing for our attention. Function and economy, therefore, are of the utmost importance.

According to the text, how does modern furniture design differ from that of the past?

A Xhosa bride in southern Africa, in contrast to her western counterpart, is expected to show both reluctance and sadness during her wedding – any signs of joy are considered inappropriate. She may even cry, and not without reason, because she is leaving her own family and relatives to live among a group of strangers where she will have to be careful of what she says and does.

For example, a new bride is not allowed to walk across the central meeting place in the middle of the kraal, or village, nor the cattle pen. And when she wishes to go from house to house, she must take the back way. To show respect for her husband’s senior relatives, she has to avoid using the names of senior
male relatives or even words similar to them, which can lead to some complex paraphrases. Furthermore, she is not allowed to use the personal names of her mother-in-law, nor those of her husband’s aunts and elder sisters. Her first priority is the care of her husband, which means doing most of the heavy domestic work. Further constraints are having to wear a handkerchief low over her forehead, never showing her bare head to her husband’s relatives, not being allowed to drink milk from the homestead herd, and not touching the drinking utensils.

However, these rules become less strict as time passes. The handkerchief is eventually removed, gifts are exchanged, and family relationships become a bit more relaxed. Finally, there is a ritual killing of a cow and the bride is allowed to drink the milk of the homestead. However, once she has done this, she can no longer drink the milk of her father’s house, symbolizing her final separation from her family.

According to the text, which of the following behaviors are expected of a new Xhosa bride?