" Form follows function" ?

Question

This is a classical Modern Architecture "theory". Do you agree?

Answer 1

As you know, the debate in the literal interpretation of these words has seriously declined. In the literal sense, it was never given much weight, a lesson that students find difficult to grasp. Indeed Le Corbusier's Villa Savoy was completely unliveable by reason that we didn't have the appropriate technology at the time to make the details work.... Form clearly did not follow function in the literal sense.

However, it is obvious that the analogy that "God is in the details" still seems to apply every day in the modernist's office.

These days, even those modernists holding tight to the theory that "Form Follows Function" (I'm thinking of the office of the late Harry Seidler) have let it waver in the breeze as they realise that even Mies van der Rohe's "less is more" lends just as much in the way of stylish decoration than it does towards function.

However the theory had it's place in time. It developed out of 19th Century Architecture with its fruits, nuts, berries and grape vines, its entablature and neo this or supra that and it carried architecture and the arts well into the new century where it died a horrifying brutalist death in the 1960's.

I'm a fan, for sure. There is room to contextualise the modern movement and to make it more culturally specific. That's an area of special interest to me.

Answer 2

Maybe in utilitarian versions of classical architecture, but art has no such obligation or restriction. Indeed "form may create function" in both art and some artistic architectural philosophies. It's a beginning to start there with that idea. But architecture supported by advances in understanding, building techniques and building materials has opened the the door to more imaginative and creative visions.

I see lots of good A's to your Q.

I think there is such a thing as transcendental architecture as there is transcendental art and transcendental thought.

I would think of "form follows function" as a thumb rule in mechanical and civil engineering design specifically and all engineering in general. It also reminds me of Leonardo Davinci's studies of forms (eg human body, horses in motion & birds in flight to name a few) and his many engineering designs.

Answer 3

The phrase “Form follows function” originally was introduced by a sculptor, Horatio Greenough before being adapted and made famous by architect Louis Sullivan. But ironically, Sullivan himself, in the peak of his career did not fully embrace this philosophy. While his buildings bear all the trademark of the crisp and spare masses familiar to modern architecture, he had been known to punctuate some surfaces with decorative elements of Art Nouveau and Celtic Revival influences, from organic forms to geometric patterns. Check out his design of the Carson Pirie Scott store (South State Street).

I personally think that the battlecry “Form follows function” so passionately followed with dogged determination by some Modernist architects often ignores the fact of the human’s intrinsic desire for aesthetics. While I fully support the essentiality of designing in moderation and addressing all the needs of the inhabitants of a building and its functions, I always try to also incorporate into any of my design exercises considerations for human being’s needs of living in an environment that is conducive to their psychological wellness. This is because I believe that beauty IS a form of therapy too. The sterility of a modernist design can only appeal for so long. It is natural for a human user to desire to contribute further to the visual presentation of their living environments with their own personal stamps.

For me, I believe it is all about balance. A building that addresses all its technical functions is good. But I also believe that a healthy dash of aesthetics can only contribute to a building’s character further. Architectural expression to me is a matter of taste; there's no rule that says you have to studiously embrace one philosophy over another.

Answer 4

To me, 'function follows form'. Deciding on the shape aspects first. Beauty places itself at the top of any structure. The subject must capture its lookers before getting them into functional commentaries. Whenever something is thought of to build, we imagine how it will summon great attraction, and then start working on the feasibilities. While the essence of architecture doesn't rely solely on its geometrical contours and cosmetics, but likewise in the fundamentals of its use, it's logical to say they can't be separated or deprived of each. But they must come by this order: Function preceded by Form.

Answer 5

to some extent, yes, you must first think of the function of something, then decide the form, but to me the form also includes much more then just the function , it should be appealing to those who will use it/come in contact with it, and it can either blend into its environment or stand out from it (depending on the desire of the architect)
so i suppose its all in how you define function, is the function just the actual work/job/mission of the subject, or is the function also meeting these other needs

Answer 6

No. I suppose this maxim is to be applied here to philosophy, so I would say that form must be made TO function. This fits in with society and all of the attendant cultural pressures.

You see, if one allows that form follows function, one must accept a certain inherent determinedness as to one's existence. We know that this is not the case and that life is a gradualist undertaking, being defined as it is lived.

Also, personal choice is very much a part of life and cannot be taken out of the equation. In large measure, we choose our form and then work to function within it.

Answer 7

Sullivan and Wright were right. When we get away from it there's a lot of wasted space and needless waste. There's also kitsch instead of art. A good part of the "function" for these architects was not only structural stability but aesthetic principles. It had to fit the environment and express the values of those who used it.

Answer 8

That saying belongs more in engineering than architecture. It embodies simplicity. Architecture is art/form, engineering is function.

Answer 9

No. This an "either or" question, (or conclusion). Is there any logical reason why they cannot be in harmony? Speculations & assumptions regarding the black or white of something are dangerously irrational. Where are the shades of grey?

Answer 10

I certainly do... This has been the state of the art standard philosophy ever since Louis Sullivan coined the phrase. You can see a very good sample of his work by taking a walking tour of the Chicago Loop. Sullivan contributed many of the older block on block structures.

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/2360/jm-eng.fff-hai.html

[][][] r u randy? [][][]
.