- - The original note follows - -
Path: psuvm!news.cac.psu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!spool.mu.edu!
bloom-beacon.mit.edu!senator-bedfellow.mit.edu!athena.mit.edu!tsuchiya
From: tsuchiya@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx (N John Tsuchiya)
Newsgroups: alt.architecture
Subject: "Form" and "Function"?
Date: 12 Sep 1993 03:46:52 GMT
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Lines: 65
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <26u63c$pnu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
NNTP-Posting-Host: m16-034-16.mit.edu
Perhaps the most misunderstood and misused phrase to have come out of
architecture is "form follows function," or as Louis Sullivan originally
coined it, "form ever follows function." Oddly enough, those who have most
espoused this phrase after the death of Louis Sullivan were the Modernists.
I say this is odd, since Sullivan is often regarded as the great master of
ornamentation and the Modernists totally revoked it.
This can be explained by comparing what the Modernists took "form
follows function" to mean and what Louis Sullivan meant by it. Unfortunately,
many people, and actually most lay people, understand it in the way that the
Modernists did. The Modernists interpreted the phrase as meaning something
similar to "ornament [i.e., "form"] is subordinate in importance to [i.e.,
"follows"] structure/mechanics of a building [i.e., "function"]."
However, this is entirely NOT what Sullivan was trying to express.
Sullivan's ideas originated from the ideas of many art philosophers of the past
(especially the early American sculptor, Horatio Greenough's
_Form_and_Function_).
When one reads _Kindergarten_Chats_, from which the phrase comes, one quickly
realizes the real meaning.
"Form ever follows function" means that "the shape of any object is the
physical representation of what its use is."
To take a simple example, the function of a door is represented by the
physical door itself. That is, it is supposed to act as temporary physical
barrier between, say, two rooms. Therefore, it is made of a solid object, with
hinges to allow for opening, and door knobs to both provide a means to pull the
door and to unlock it. If there is a necessary function for the door to allow
for sight between the rooms, then the corresponding form would be a window, of
a size and fitting its function.
Any natural object, through Darwinism, has evolved so that its form
coincides directly with its function. The leaves on a decidous tree, for
instance, all lean to best face the sun. The ones on the east and west slope
downwards and the ones on the south slope more horizontally. Also, more leaves
grow on the southern side than the northern side, and very few at all grow on
the
lower part of the north side, where little sun can reach at all.
Ornamentation in architecture also serves a function, although a very
ephemeral one at that. Sullivan explained it best in his essay, "The Just
Subordination of Ornament to Mass" (which is included in the Dover publication,
_Kindergarten_Chats_and_Selected_Writings_).
Perhaps the only architect who has ever taken this phrase correctly
and used it fully in his architecture, was Frank Lloyd Wright. Having learned
architecture from Sullivan himself, this is easily understandable. Wright
obviously lived at the same as the Modernists, and so when he saw them
"butchering" Sullivan's phrase, he realized that a better one was needed.
The phrase that Wright came up with was "form and function are one."
Now, in light of the real meaning of "form follows function," one can see that
these two phrases are saying the exact same thing, except Wright's is less
likely to be misinterpreted. Probably just for this reason, combined with most
people's perceptions of "form follows function," Wright's phrase is not shouted
about in every architecture school and by many eager architecture students.
(Example: on a proposed t-shirt design for an architecture organization,
"form and function are one" was created some controversy; of course, "form
follows function" would have been fine!)
So let form and function be one in everything people make. And perhaps,
truly artistic objects will grace the face of the earth again!
N. John Tsuchiya
Path: psuvm!news.cac.psu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!spool.mu.edu!
bloom-beacon.mit.edu!senator-bedfellow.mit.edu!athena.mit.edu!tsuchiya
From: tsuchiya@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx (N John Tsuchiya)
Newsgroups: alt.architecture
Subject: "Form" and "Function"?
Date: 12 Sep 1993 03:46:52 GMT
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Lines: 65
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <26u63c$pnu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
NNTP-Posting-Host: m16-034-16.mit.edu
Perhaps the most misunderstood and misused phrase to have come out of
architecture is "form follows function," or as Louis Sullivan originally
coined it, "form ever follows function." Oddly enough, those who have most
espoused this phrase after the death of Louis Sullivan were the Modernists.
I say this is odd, since Sullivan is often regarded as the great master of
ornamentation and the Modernists totally revoked it.
This can be explained by comparing what the Modernists took "form
follows function" to mean and what Louis Sullivan meant by it. Unfortunately,
many people, and actually most lay people, understand it in the way that the
Modernists did. The Modernists interpreted the phrase as meaning something
similar to "ornament [i.e., "form"] is subordinate in importance to [i.e.,
"follows"] structure/mechanics of a building [i.e., "function"]."
However, this is entirely NOT what Sullivan was trying to express.
Sullivan's ideas originated from the ideas of many art philosophers of the past
(especially the early American sculptor, Horatio Greenough's
_Form_and_Function_).
When one reads _Kindergarten_Chats_, from which the phrase comes, one quickly
realizes the real meaning.
"Form ever follows function" means that "the shape of any object is the
physical representation of what its use is."
To take a simple example, the function of a door is represented by the
physical door itself. That is, it is supposed to act as temporary physical
barrier between, say, two rooms. Therefore, it is made of a solid object, with
hinges to allow for opening, and door knobs to both provide a means to pull the
door and to unlock it. If there is a necessary function for the door to allow
for sight between the rooms, then the corresponding form would be a window, of
a size and fitting its function.
Any natural object, through Darwinism, has evolved so that its form
coincides directly with its function. The leaves on a decidous tree, for
instance, all lean to best face the sun. The ones on the east and west slope
downwards and the ones on the south slope more horizontally. Also, more leaves
grow on the southern side than the northern side, and very few at all grow on
the
lower part of the north side, where little sun can reach at all.
Ornamentation in architecture also serves a function, although a very
ephemeral one at that. Sullivan explained it best in his essay, "The Just
Subordination of Ornament to Mass" (which is included in the Dover publication,
_Kindergarten_Chats_and_Selected_Writings_).
Perhaps the only architect who has ever taken this phrase correctly
and used it fully in his architecture, was Frank Lloyd Wright. Having learned
architecture from Sullivan himself, this is easily understandable. Wright
obviously lived at the same as the Modernists, and so when he saw them
"butchering" Sullivan's phrase, he realized that a better one was needed.
The phrase that Wright came up with was "form and function are one."
Now, in light of the real meaning of "form follows function," one can see that
these two phrases are saying the exact same thing, except Wright's is less
likely to be misinterpreted. Probably just for this reason, combined with most
people's perceptions of "form follows function," Wright's phrase is not shouted
about in every architecture school and by many eager architecture students.
(Example: on a proposed t-shirt design for an architecture organization,
"form and function are one" was created some controversy; of course, "form
follows function" would have been fine!)
So let form and function be one in everything people make. And perhaps,
truly artistic objects will grace the face of the earth again!
N. John Tsuchiya