Relationship between Form and Function in Architecture - Essay Example

Unit: RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FORM AND FUNCTION IN ARCHITECTURE “Form Follows Function is a dictum formed by Louis Sullivan, an American architect. Sullivan represented this maxim in his article ‘The tall office Building Artistically Considered” which had been published in 1896 (Abbott et al.2000). In this article, he offered his view to the new types of buildings of which according to him at that time were tall office buildings nearing the name skyscraper. To bring out the argument of his perception of skyscraper design and for the rising structure character, he claimed that his design represented a natural outcome of all pervading laws. He invented his supposed law in broad terms. He stated; “It my certainty that it is of the very fundamental nature of each difficulty that it has and proposes its personal solution. This I am certain to be a natural law. Let us evaluate the elements carefully and look for this limited suggestion, this difficulty quintessence” (Abbott et al.2000) This paper is therefore towards looking into the function and form in the prehistoric times and argument behind the maxim “Form follows Function”. An excellent architecture is towards creation of functional design throughout the lifestyle, work, amusement and study among other things. All the decisions of the design should be developed in-between the perception of functional, social and ergonomic needs of the structure being devised which is the theory that is just as form follows function. This theory of form follows function could be drawn into economic, evolution, aesthetic and culture tradition. They are connected with form closely to bring out the various visual effects and consequences. The paper therefore in details looks at function as the major consideration of architecture and importance of form in architecture. The paper also discusses instances in which form is taking the lead and looks into the move towards formalism and sculptural qualities expression. The has been strong debates going around from the past concerning this theory form follows function. People like Louis Sullivan maintains that form follow function while others went against it. After all, issues are always expecting positives and critics (Abbott et al.2000). Therefore, when people stand to mention that form follows function, some will shout to favor the reverse, function follows form. This dictum of design actually makes sense but if you analyze it thoroughly, it becomes confusing. Evaluating the modern architecture it is true that function follows form, for without getting the meaning behind form. This deduces that it was publically accepted and we have the opportunity of evading the ancient principle, from follows function. To be precise, form and function do not fall together but only applies in ecology. Loos viewed to recognition of the various ways individuals decide to carry on with their lives. He maintains that acquisitive these forms of living is important to any artifact design and changes in the living ways linked with it promotes changes with design. He was obstinate in his allege that formation of artifact’s beauty lies past simply formal ideals. According to him, function meant the fulfillment of realism but that fulfillment must react to the ways of living, which must essentially promote individual’s experience (Bell, 2011). From the case study of architect Tomislav Premerl, the modernist model form follows function personified is well known anesthetic opinion less in more clear in the mid 20th century. Modern architecture, however, in its growth to develop a genuine fresh age vocabulary, lost its organic connection with the past (Sokol, Gojnik, Obad-Šćitaroci, 2012). In the untimely years subsequent to the World War 2, late modern architecture came about of a reaction to modernist reductionism. It viewed over the Modernist heritage of functionalism, yet its softer more enlightened and more open form was a response to the pedant rationalism and notion of Modernism. Late architecture articulateness was exhausted within the time of 10 years and was consequently followed by the latest way of architecture-post modernism. Post modern trend to renew the past can be observed as response against modern rationalist and conceptual idea which discarded any past reference. Post-Modern architecture a concatenation of the conservative and connected cultural meanings was an appearance of a pluralism of thoughts. The 1965 Second Vatican Council strategy for a more active association of the worshippers in the liturgical examination had a noticeable consequence on the late modern and Post-Modern architectural affinities and the search for fresh plan types. The entire religious architects of Tomislav Premerl reveals permanence which combines late modernist articulateness rooted in the modern thinking based on functionalism and post modern and current tendencies bracing native forms and materials. The end result is a raised knowledge of the tradition together with its meaning. Premerl connected the affinities to the fresh theological and liturgical notions in its artistic endeavor to instill Christian liturgical liberty with an architectural importance (Sokol, Gojnik, Obad-Šćitaroci, 2012). The form of the building does not only dependent on function but also topography, climate, material, social structures, techniques and symbolism. This has been demonstrated well in the modern by the principle “form follows function”. However, the interpretation of the function in the prehistoric architecture is not easy to identify. However five methods can be applied in the interpretation of building features, that is: Ad hoc interpretations; building type’s equalization with functions; analogy conclusions; Circumstantial evidences; and contextual analysis (Trebsche, Peter, 2009). Furthermore, arguments came up if function was the only thing that determines form, and it was concluded that forms follow other things apart from function alone. Some ideas were therefore given out to prove this. Firstly, new techniques for construction and building material invention around the 19th century has encouraged new building forms which were never seen before, like steel frame construction procedures development. Technology and building materials availability also came as useful factors in the pre-modern building. However, factors like climate and topography must not be seen as determinant factors as provided by the cultural studies. They only have the effects of preventive factors restricting reasonable possibilities. Secondly, modernism proves how architecture is equipped with the significance and works as a symbol. Architecture represents the descriptions of advancement; clean functionalism is barely approved anymore: house as steamboat; flat as dwelling machine; and villa as an aero plane. Symbolism in the modern era is not anymore uttered as ornamentation; the building instead becomes the symbol itself. Lastly, architectural modernism has also got the social control of architecture and tries to manipulate social factors straightforwardly. The issue of enough housing for the working classes played a useful function in the growth of fresh techniques for construction or housing estate design. Urban planning is also towards changing social environment and new mankind education. It has been referred to as general acquaintance and there is no a unidirectional relation linking social structures to architecture, but they equally manipulate each other. Modernism has therefore provide that topography, climate and technique together with the social structures and symbolism all have influence on the form of built environment other than function alone. However, there are regular differences concerning the effects and the grouping of the above factors in architecture (Trebsche, Peter, 2009). Looking at the prehistoric architecture in general, it is not easy to understand form or function from the prehistoric part of view. Its form is only fragmentarily reachable due to the impermanence of the material for building like clay, timber and the destructive consequences like erosion. For some regions like North America and Italy and for some periods house models gives a clue on the appearance of the building like for example Alpine rock art (Trebsche,Peter, 2009).. Such figures give ideas on the structure of walls and roofs, window openings, ornamentation and coloration of buildings and door ways. According to Peter, for most cultures in the prehistoric such architecture representations never existed and only excavations were relied on. Perceptibly, excellent archeological features preserved provided adequate information on construction and use of building they constitute. In his research he therefore proposed method of state of preservation to allow facilitation and systematization comparisons and evaluations. He was therefore in a position to distinguish various states of preservation: Upstanding building parts; building floor layer; sunken foundations; and preservation of lower foundation remains. Peter in his research could form classifications of building features under various criteria: building material; layout and size; principle of construction and supporting parts; and number of bays. Due to preservation, exclusively constructive features can be useful in the modern typologies of prehistoric construction. Considering the prehistoric function, it could not be identified priori. Several functional groups could however be distinguished: basic needs fulfilling; social functions; economic functions; symbolic functions; and cultic functions. In the interpretation of archaeological buildings functions, a series of difficulties occurred. One was unable to divide various functional areas as the building occupied several functions on various levels. The structure’s functions consisted of two components which is primary function and secondary function. Buildings also exhibited a change in the genuine use. Here one was in a position to differentiate primary, secondary together with tertiary functions which showed in both cases the planned intention, reconstruction and extra use and consequent reclaim following desertion. The number of promising functions was also limited. Various new needs came in through history and hence development of new functions and new building tasks (Trebsche, Peter, 2009). Certain functions were also replaced and the process majorly met by technical advancement. This therefore proves that the researchers in the modern world are not in a position to know the prehistoric people needs and the probable functions of the archeological buildings. Form needs a combination with function, which does not provide any option to make a decision on it. Traditionally, in the principle the form is controlled by the building purpose function for the reason for building use. Furthermore, it is the formal factors building materials, climate, environment and other forces that start to put forward how the idea replicates its users. Another angle of outlook is the visualization which involves many factors like stakeholders, multiple functions, targeted users and it is intrinsically lasting (Righini, 200) Function offers the designer to simplify the option and give a starting point. This makes the completion of the project easier. If there is no combination between the form and function then the function will at long last be useless. The function requires form for it to attain its objective and the form on the other hand requires function for it to be in effective. Form without function is like a piece of clear paper without any meaning. This is the straightest way to confirm its effectiveness. The designer of your building without any doubt constitutes a mind to assure your functional needs. Furthermore, the designer possibly anticipated the whole form of the buildings to fit their intention and prearrange the intention anesthetically. This shows that function somewhat go before form that it is independent of form and exist before form occurs. If we decide not to adhere to the opinion form follows function then the tall buildings should be positioned all over and hence constitutes no role apart from aesthetic. This means that a high rise building s like those in Beijing should resemble others in Taiwan, in a different way from the form simply. Considering the famous architects in the 20th century; Le Corbusier, Mies van der Rohe, Frank Lloyd Wright who adhered to the principle, used different materials in building. Corbusier applied concrete, Mies applied glass and steel and Frank used concrete block of wood (Wang & Groat, 2013). If one assumes issues of technology, culture, climate, building materials, all of them about function, are just as useful as architect’s preference and styles. All famous buildings found in a disorderly situation or one day one will find himself or herself living in an anesthetically home made from a paper. This shows that function is on control of form. Human function was always the major determinant of architectural form. However, the genuine adaptation of form of construction to its function had formed the primary thought with which the ancient advocates of modern architecture formed critics against the anesthetic basis and methodological of the customary neo-classical pattern. Subsequently, modern architecture became identified with functionalism. Coming the 20th century, functionalism faced criticisms due to its connection to industrialization and automatic equivalences. Mumford criticized the modern buildings for having only “the functionalism visual illusions without achievement of the genuine functional architecture” (Grabow & Spreckelmeyer, 2014). He later assailed the slight, mechanistic description of function resulting from the research on kitchen carried out by Frankfurt. Mumford however welcomed functionalism as the primary principle for design; maintaining the criticism with the anxiety constriction. In short, he said that the period has reached to combine subjective functions with objective functions. This is according to him to form balance within the biological with mechanical equipments, individual values and social obligations. Stanford Anderson also argued of the modern architecture functionalism being a myth. According to him, modern constructions are only descriptions of functionality. They provide stories on function through industrial details that allude to motorized accuracy and competence. He was in agreement with William Curtis, who during his architectural survey had claims that the “myths of Functionalism” came from the reality that functions alone do not create architectural forms, pretty they can only undergo transformation into space and form by way of screen of style (Grabow & Spreckelmeyer,2014).. From modern architecture, the international style had symbolic forms got from industrial anesthetic, like mechanical principle of composition like surface perfection, principle geometrical shapes and modern proportions. Christopher Alexander also concluded that functional expression alone was not in a position to provide explanation for the generative power of architectural form, but slightly that of constructions functional necessities are only the quintessence of a deeper, more elementary arithmetic order which unites function and formation into anesthetic form. The critique of functionalism is therefore threefold: First that a construction based solely on programmatic needs. Second, the functional appearance can simply fall into symbolism without really providing satisfaction to human desires and necessities. Thirdly, despite of the fulfillment of the programmatic needs, it is always within constrict, mechanistic outlook of function (Grabow & Spreckelmeyer, 2014). The significance of form is possibly one of the most strongly debated subjects in the present-day architectural dialogue. However, the theoretical division within those who question the power of the formalist architecture and those who clinch form as an essential part of architectural invention need not embody the comparable of ideological standoff. The foundation of this debate had came from architects like Viollet-le-Duc, who projected the disagreements of the European avant-garde in the premature 20th century in his justification of structural theory of Gothic architecture and their prospective function for iron construction. The maxim “form follows function” frequent ad nauseum over the century since its first expression. The disagreement concerning form has been controlled about symbolic nexus since then. It stays pertinent only insofar as it is exactly the purpose of form that stays contested (Wake, 2000). The intrinsic opposition of the functionalist argument lies in the insufficient equation of particular architectural reactions or forms to theoretical social behaviors. This opposition is about the primary misinterpretations of social functions, leading to overgeneralizations of hinted forms of cultural work that consequently assumed the sequential social relations proportions. Adhering to this sequence, the modernists were obligated to develop extremely common spaces, like office tower, which has confirmed not enough both functionality and formally (Binnekamp, 2010). The only decisions to such forms were it not for innate flexibility of people to spaces would to be to pursue the futurist proposals that cities adjust their construction as repeatedly as people altered their clothes. The reaction to this type of functionalism came faster: coming from Team X’s reaction to the urban development policies of the CIAM, which stressed the usefulness of various sorts of social relations over a greatly formalist division of subjects maintained by the Athens Charter. By the late 1960s, there was a complete-fledged denial relocated the function of form as the appearance of cultural signifiers. Devoted to the post-structuralist analysis of texts, the post modernists stressed on the environment of architectural forms as artistic signifiers. The fundamental disagreements of their work depended on reinterpreting the architectural glossary in habits that formed symbolic relations and crevices in the past. Working under the compendious analysis of mythical theorists, such as Jacques Derrida, the after-modernists concentrated on elisions structures during which cultural referents were used in ways that basically brought problems to their decisive meanings. The type of greatly semantic re-conceptualization was used both historically, traditionally identifiable or common architectural forms and modernist forms comparable and shows a re-orientation far from the “form follows function” model of modernism, directed to philosophy top expressed as “form follows meaning” (Schumacher,2000). The late 20th and early 21st centuries of the architectural construction is extremely for its theoretical mystery and signifies a refocusing away from common occupants relating to either form or function and directed towards the being exegesis of what Charles Jenks referred to as iconic architecture. Dependant on the imaginary capacity of the architect, this type of architecture is notable the theoretical cloudiness, it stayed open to condemnation but not to appraisal unless the appraisal is dependant on its limitations to any formulation (Wallach & Hepler, 2012). The inverse of the paradigm “form follows function” was brought in through the work of post-war cyberneticists. They stressed on the ways in which functions could be consequent from the proper matrixes that made the functions achievable (Benjamin, 2000). On the discovery of architectural advocates, cyberneticists have refocused the work of the new inheritors from the objects connections and computational systems reshuffle. These systems ratify in the digital setting that the usefulness of the paradigmatic moves away from the superiority of function over form being ignored. The early pressure of cybernetic thoughts on the discussion of architecture is well shown in the effort of Cedric Price, which taking up pattern of appearance and expectance shunned formalism, over infrastructural a-formalism. Price had the understanding of the development of social models showing that formal expression of these models could not go after current ones but had to develop forms by ways in which they would survive reinvention. This is to form an architectural system variable to restructuring and thus appearance. In various compliments, was he was missing was the technological, computational and substance ways to design such spaces. Individuals had started to discover the usefulness of the environmental protection and shifting towards the green environment. The global future is somehow going to become green architecture. An ecological routine occupies conscious development on the connection between utilization today and the upcoming generations. Ecological progress needs stability between the outsets of mankind with the surroundings and the existing possessions. The ecological judgment should be normal reaction for the prospect architect. This was a reaction to the varying climate which ordered fresh constructions of growing low energy use and solid waste troubles. The architect works on the center of a fresh sort where the construction in large meets necessities and difficulties of the ecological future actions together with innovation equipments in social and anesthetic agenda. The major problem with the paradigm “Form Follows Function” is that it is tautological. It maintains that each form in the normal world occurs as it does due to functional requirements. We begin with form, the end result and turn backwards to its origin, with assumption that the outcomes were certain. However, there are various reasons that something might constitute a certain form (Stratton, 2004). In my conclusion having looked at the relationship of form and function, for effective designers, every force controls a form. The process of the design majorly starts with something that is not yet but wants to be present, and it shifts towards the formal outcomes. The form develops from the scheme holistic forces. These forces include client needs, aesthetics preference, moral obligations, objects properties, audience requests and cultural presumptions. Function is precisely viewed as single, quantifiable isolated features of the general force pushing form. Various criticisms have come out against the paradigm but it is still effective in the current world architecture. However, difficulties have been experienced in trying to look at the effectiveness of the paradigm in the prehistoric setting. Function has occurred to be vital since the ancient times together with the form, both working together in the achievement of the anesthetic of the construction. Views of various architect proponents have been considered regarding the paradigm, looking at both the critiques and the criticisms. However, the critiques have overweighed the criticisms still proving the effectiveness of the paradigm. Form has also come out to be very important in architecture. However, it has been seen that function not only depends on form but also other factors. However, the dependant of function on forms it much greater. I take function to serve as a lead to design the form. It directs the designer to narrow along the options and gives a preliminary point. The form therefore has the role of foretelling the function that falls in-between. Just as the plan has a difficulty to be solved other than just making it prettier is a test. Function requires form for it to balance, it works one on one. Therefore for construction to serve an effective function, its design must be in a position to support that function. I therefore maintain that “Form Follows Function “. BIBLIOGRAPHY ABBOTT, J. R. (2000). Louis Sullivan, architectural modernism, and the creation of democratic space. The American Sociologist, 31(1), 62-85. BELL, D. (2011). The Irritation of Architecture. Journal of Architectural Education, 64(2), 113- 126. Top of Form BENJAMIN, A. E. (2000). Architectural philosophy: repetition, function, alterity. New Brunswick, Athlone Press. Top of Form BINNEKAMP, R. (2010). Preference-based design in architecture. Amsterdam, Delft University Press. GRABOW, S., & SPRECKELMEYER, K. (2014). The Architecture of Use: Aesthetics and Function in Architectural Design. Routledge. HEPLER, D., WALLACH, P., & HEPLER, D. (2012). Drafting and Design for Architecture & Construction. Cengage Learning. Top of FormRIGHINI, P. (2000). Thinking architecturally: an introduction to the creation of form and place. Cape Town [South Africa], University of Cape Town Press. Top of Form SCHUMACHER, P. (2011). The autopoiesis of architecture. Chichester, J. Wiley. SOKOL GOJNIK, Z., GOJNIK, I., & OBAD-ŠĆITAROCI, M. (2012). Principles of Modernism in Church Bottom of FormDesign: Architect Tomislav Premerl. Prostor: znanstveni časopis za arhitekturu i urbanizam, 20(1 (43)), 74-87. Bottom of Form Bottom of Form Top of Form STRATTON, A. (2004). Form and design in classic architecture. Mineola, N.Y., Dover Publications. Bottom of Form TREBSCHE, PETER(2009)Does form follow function? Towards a methodical interpretation of archaeological buildingfeatures,World Archaeology,41:3,505 — 519 Top of Form WANG, D., & GROAT, L. N. (2013). Architectural research methods. http://www.123library.org/book_details/?id=97247. Page 43. Top of Form WAKE, W. K. (2000). Design paradigms: a sourcebook for creative visualization. New York , NY [u.a.], Wiley. Bottom of Form Bottom of Form Read More