Function and Form in Architecture - Literature review Example

FUNCTION AND FORM IN ARCHITECTURE: By (Insert both names) (Name of class) (Professor’s name) (Institution) (City, State) (Date) 1. “The extent function is a primary consideration in architecture” According to (Banham 2002), an architectural form is shaped by its intended function. According to this view, the form of a good building is shaped by the various social, physical, symbolic and psychological functions it is expected to perform. The ideal shape of a concert hall, for instance, should be generated by setting out uninterrupted sight of lines for every spectator, the shape and the location of the foyers should be determined by the flow of the people to and from their seats; and the outside appearance should be shaped by the symbolic role of a concert hall as a focus of civil pride. According to this view, the ideal architectural form is already latently contained in the information about the needs of the client, climatology conditions, community values among others waiting to be discovered by the diligent designer. Those who have asserted to this view claim that the designer must be like a scientist, because both are concerned with finding some form in a body of pre-existing facts. According to Christopher Alexander, just like the scientist avoids preconceptions, gathers together the objective facts about nature, analyses them for possible underlying regularities and then induces a general law, so the designer in this view avoids preconceptions, gathers together the objective facts about the design problem, analyses the inherent form implications and then draws out or synthesizes the final building form. In both cases, personal values or dispositions are intentionally put aside as the scientist or designer rationally discovers that which already exist. The designer in this view is little more than a mechanism through which a predetermined form is discovered (Sharp 2008). Good buildings are, of course, shaped to a considered extent by the functions they have to fulfill, but the sole description of how a building form is invented does tell the whole story. If functions were the sole determinant of form, one would expect every building performing the same function in the same place take the same form, and clearly this does not happen. Throughout America and Europe one can find examples of Classical, Gothic, and Modernist churches in the same city, with the same climate and meeting equally well the same functions, but all possessing quite different appearances. Furthermore, if designing a building involved nothing more than satisfying the functional requirements, one would expect to find no evidence of the particular architect’s personality in the solution. Just as one would not expect, to find evidence of a particular mathematician’s hand in the solution of a quadratic equation. Yet buildings do show the imprint of the architects’ personality, to the extent that historians often guess a building’s author by the idiosyncratic characteristics of its massing, form and detailing. If one looks at the collected works of any given architect, one will inevitably find certain similar works preoccupations or themes running through many of his or her building for quite differentiae? The architectural form is shaped by the prevailing spirit of the age as (Banham 2002) pointed out. No matter how much an individual designer might thinks that he is following personal creative, this view holds that his work will unconsciously respond to the world view, sense of taste and artistic values he inevitably shares with his fellow designers. To a considerable extent, the source of his design ideas is to be found “in the air” around him. So even though his work may exhibit individual characteristics which can be attributed to his personal skill, it will also display overriding characteristics which readily indentify it as originating in the Gothic, or the Renaissance or Post Modernism. According to (Sharp 2008), the evidence of build form does suggest that designers at any given time share certain ideas which infuse their work, but as a theory about the source form, the concept of a spirit of the Age leaves several puzzling questions. First of all, what extent is the invisible and shared spirit which shapes individual actions? It is simply the sum of the entire individual’s action, or is it something more difficult to explain like a common psychological urge or even a divine force? Secondly, while the existence of such a spirit might help explain the continuity of a design approach, or style, in any given stage, how does it explain the sudden changes in the style form of one age to the next? That is if the designers are under the coercive influence of the prevailing spirit, how are some designers able to step outside the spirit and create a new style apparently in advance of what later will become the new prevailing spirit as (Sharp 2008) established. Thirdly, how does this idea explain that some ages would appear to posses several spirits simultaneously? At the turn of the century, for example, one spirit extolling the virtues of the future modern age showed itself emerging in the work of modernist pioneers like Peter Behrens and Walter Gropius. While another spirit extolling the virtues of great ages past showed itself in the works of E Edwardian architects like Sir Edwin Lutyens and Herbert Baker. Now if the spirit of an age is simply a descriptive summary of all the prevailing architectural tendencies, one would have to search for some formula that would simultaneously incorporate both Behrens and Lutyens, which historians of the spirit persuasions have never managed to do. Instead, proponents of this theory inclined to plump for one at the expense of the other. In his history of modern design, for instance, Sir Nikolaus Pevsner dismissed as inconsequential the later Classical designs of Sir Edwin Lutyens, because they did not follow Pevsner’s concept of the emerging twentieth century spirit. If the spirit of an age truly exerts a coercive influence over the artistic efforts of all the individuals within the age – as it must do in order for the theory two works, how can there be designers who fail to follow its directions. The only possible explanation is that there are several spirits from which a designer must choose, and then this freedom of choice contradicts the basic premise of the entire theory. 2. “the role and significance of form in architecture” Judging by the architectural attributes, mainly morphological features such as structure format and lay out or planning, seven distinct episodes of development can be discerned. First, the spanning the centuries from about 800BC to roughly 350BC left no undisturbed evidence in the restricted exposures that were sampled. Hence we have no in situ architecture from this period. Secondly, redeposited materials suggest both ritual and residential activity. The second period dating from about 350BC to about 200BC appears in plates. Although a circular structure may be present, this cannot be established with much confidence. The only other architectural fragment form this time, largely hypothetical seems like unspecialized architecture that might have served either ritual or residential functions as (Sharp 2008) argued. The third episode: I observe that the lack of data hampers judgment as to whether this structure could be considered residential or structural. The whole complex looks very formal but this would certainly not be considered appropriate for elite occupancy. Triple stairs may argue for ritual use. The circular platform together with the rear outset may weigh in on the side of ritual. The two terraces comprising the platform U, with apron molding may also account as ritual indicator. Rounded platform corners and twinned frontal stairs may argue for a further level of formality. Rounded corners would not be seen as ritual forms were it not for persistence of such corners in the later developments where ritual functioning seems indicated. Such corners appear to be absent in the Tikal residential contexts that have been investigated. According to (Banham, 2002), the format of (Str. 5d-Sub. 1-2nd,) the little we know about it, seems to be very like an ordinary residential dwelling persistent through more than a century of change. If indeed ritual function was the primary consideration designers chose not to emulate very much more developed architectural forms already in place at site not far distant. Prior occupations occupation of the acropolis site, its evidence destroyed by the by these developments, may have been a factor in this conservative treatment. Evolution of kinship and elite status, which might stimulate more monumental construction, may have been less developed at Tikal than at other sites of the region during this period, or may not have involved the North Acropolis. In the forth episode, I think that the architectural forms appear specialized either for ritual or for some other demand calling for impressive articulated, forms equipped with prominently placed sculptural imagery. Substructure height, when compared with clearly residential construction, stands as persuasive evidence for this. Interpretation of these works as ritual architecture may be supported by the tandem plan of organization of the two room buildings. Residential structures show this pattern but perhaps not as frequently and rarely as only two rooms in tandem arrangement. Mask panels flanking the axial stairway provide additional features not known for residential structures. The developments at the head of the axial stair provide another example of planning not typical of residential installations but perhaps appropriate for ritually specialized ones with their demands for separation from the mundane realm. The introduction of red paint on a large scale probably indicates ritual function. Possible provision for theatrical appearances in the wider axial doorway suggests a dramatic role aimed at addressing a larger audience. This could serve both ritual and ruler-ship and may document manipulation of beliefs for political purposes. Acropolis function may have been primarily sacerdotal in those years. The late pre-classic development is marked by amplification of the height and includes establishment of the ruling Tikal dynastic line, perhaps usurping an earlier ruler-ship. After hesitant beginnings this stage of development took on a coherent pattern and eventually established the final lineaments of the acropolis. Earlier in this stage the ruling lineage holding power throughout most of the early classic period took office and the acropolis probably served both ritual and ruler-ship functions. Later on, a new ruling lineage appeared and detracted from architectural form by a series of frontal additions that did nothing to increase the sense of power and coherence established earlier. Ironically, though, the final refinements of form aiming to embody ideological content took place during this period and the acropolis, behind the screen of frontal structures, may have reverted to its original sacerdotal identity as (Banham 2002) suggusted. 3. “the degree to which the interest in form moves towards formalism” The kind of professional service which architects offer connects the various aspects of construction. This link subordinates “commodity, delight and firmness” of the economic essential of the budget and to the formal essentials of the architectural design. Some critics argue that elite designers promote the distinction between the extraordinary and the ordinary design. In fact, in regards to the systems of architectural artistic, object and originality architecture “stands out against the imperative background of the ordinary design”. Ideological merits can take both ways, however the architectural discourse consists of more than just ideology. Absolute designers require the economic efficiency and technical competence of professionals who are service oriented, not least to handling the fear of client of the artistic headstrong, unpredictable and profligate reputation. I think that if the conceptual architectural designs are really interested in promoting the broader range of architectural discourse, thus it needs to consider other superficially extra-formal concerns. The interest in form setbacks are closely linked to architectural failure to look into its technical and physical particulars. Even if a hypothetical structure is never planned to be actualized, it needs to take into considerations concerns about the tectonic weathering, structure and materiality, in which case the idea is deemed to be less of architectural work. Establishments which halt their critical thinking within the schematic or conceptual design stage do not entirely look into what the architecture can be or is. The insinuation of an inflexible approach on the conceptual, presumably commendable for its boldness of the factors of capital and its disciplinary basis on the architectural form, falls in the broadening gap between building construction and conceptual thinking as if these two elements were mutually exclusive. Subsequently, for the buildings which get to the construction stage, there is remarkable impoverishment at the stage of the detail. Above the simplistic imitation of a sketch design, there is normally lack of design development and continuity in scale, from the general form to minimal details, from the original concept to the completed building, which is capable of transforming the formal, usually the very exclusive design concept to a convincing construction. The famous Presbyterian Church in Korea by Lynn Greg is one of such an illustration of exclusive visual images rendering a cumbersome transition into the structure. The structure establishes a less convincing illustration of its conceptual desire than its accomplishments. What comes out is an unsatisfying effort at maintaining the structure to the biomorphic, fluid quality images attained through the application of character animation as oppose to the high autonomous concept structure that it projected to be. According to (Sharp 2008), part of the misunderstanding regarding what is “properly” conceptual when it comes to architecture is the dependence on reception and presentation of the conceptual by way of apparent forms as oppose to underlying pertinent functions. Dematerialization within art was not with reference to disregarding the material just like that, but it concerned a varied conception of the link between art production and materiality. Morris Robert “steam sculptures” for example, did not get rid of their materiality but integrated an extraordinary understanding of the meaning of sculpture and how it is developed. Rather than physically fighting the architecture (which I suggest is inherent even to its conceptualization), it would be ultimately more productive to operate within the limitations of manufacture and material, ignored elements unique to architecture turns around the physical condition, its methods and means of making the specific relationship to the culture, society, the economy, and politics among others. The job of Hargreaves Associates, found in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and San Francisco demonstrates an intense interest inform established from human use and natural process, particularly in their designs for waterfront park series. The location, that was so much intended to be a recreational site was hence the result of human art and developed on human waste. The sponsor for the project harshly restricted the remodeling of the contour. So as to stabilize the moldering garbage underneath, clay and soil were applied, and a flame continually exhausting the gases collected below the ground. Since it was presumed that any rapture within the toppling of the earthen could permit the escape of noxious gases, no vegetation was planted. As a result of seepage percolating the pollutants in the underneath water, irrigation was ruled out. These constraints directed the attention of the designers to land contour as the fundamental design characteristic and promoted respect for the inhabitant species. This was so because of the idea of formalism. References: 1. Banham, R. (2002). Theory and Design in the First Machine Age. Third edition. Praeger Publishers Inc. 2. Bletter, R, H.(2003), Expressionism and the New Objectivity," Art Journal, 43:2 108-120 3. Sharp, D. (2008). Modern Architecture and Expressionism. George Braziller: New York 4. Jencks, C. (2006). Modern Movements in Architecture. Second Edition. Penguin . Read More