Petrilli said:
> I believe that if anyone things that form doesn't follow function,
> they are seriously misunderstanding architecture, and are probably
> responsible for the enormous quanitity of ugly and pointless
> buildings.
Pointlessness is a function of the artist and it may have form, perhaps
chaotic at times, perhaps to stir a mood or environment.
> When you lose sight of function when you conceive of form, you end up
> with buildings that may or may not look good, but are useless to the
> people who must inhabit them.
Is that "good" architecture?
Good as art maybe, perhaps if thought out it can be a usable and functional
space. Then we could think of function as a method to breakdown boundries
and form as the method to get there. It is usually the definition of the
function that tends to screw things up and the norms we so easily succumb
to without thought.
Take for example the new planned Student Center at UT Austin. The driving
function is to build around a building the administration is not willing
to tear down. It is to salvage the $600K in design fees the architecture
firm has already spent. The form is L-shaped and boxy with little
windows. There is no access but one entrance and 6' halls to serve 30-40K
students. It is ugly. Totally function driven and the wrong function.
The form takes place as rooms and space are allocated to a heiracrhy or
prioritized need. The main driving force to build around a building.
Another example is my lot. My function and form is defined by zoning.
The best thing I can do is build below ground and build a fence or hedge
around it. Even then it will take variances. If I build above ground I
have no yard 'cept the easements on the edges. Beyond boundries is my
call for form as well as function. In the world it appears that function
defines the form and for that reason alone it appears to follow.
Another example is the linearity of say video. Always a begining and end
with a message and audience as the norm of form following function. I say
beyond. Break the mold, unlearn, have no begining nor middle create noise,
have multi-messages strung together rapidly, slowly for many audiences.
Or for virtual space- no ends, no rooms, just x,y,z,time with variance and
displacement. Forms twirling through and back again or not. World without
end, Amen.
> Architecture is not form, it is not function alone. Architecture is
> the form that is inspired by function and driven by it. It is when we
> allow form to drive function that we gain buildings that are better
> placed in a museum than in the lives of people.
Pretty good copy Chris 'cept the "is inspired by" is a bit romantic, perhaps
"is the result of" would seem to fit what seems to occur.
John wrote: If form doesn't follow function,
> why are doors the size they are?
cause they were designed that way to fit budget
> why are they located where they are?
cause the designer needed to appease his client
> why does the roof as a form exist?
because the client's prequisite was shelter.
> why are sloped roofs sloped?
some aren't, perhaps the client would be pissed if the shelter falled
And why is form and function one?
Why don't desiners give themselves permission to free themselves rather
than take from the form that functions them?
Form may follow but there may be a lesson to break the boundries.
Jay
> I believe that if anyone things that form doesn't follow function,
> they are seriously misunderstanding architecture, and are probably
> responsible for the enormous quanitity of ugly and pointless
> buildings.
Pointlessness is a function of the artist and it may have form, perhaps
chaotic at times, perhaps to stir a mood or environment.
> When you lose sight of function when you conceive of form, you end up
> with buildings that may or may not look good, but are useless to the
> people who must inhabit them.
Is that "good" architecture?
Good as art maybe, perhaps if thought out it can be a usable and functional
space. Then we could think of function as a method to breakdown boundries
and form as the method to get there. It is usually the definition of the
function that tends to screw things up and the norms we so easily succumb
to without thought.
Take for example the new planned Student Center at UT Austin. The driving
function is to build around a building the administration is not willing
to tear down. It is to salvage the $600K in design fees the architecture
firm has already spent. The form is L-shaped and boxy with little
windows. There is no access but one entrance and 6' halls to serve 30-40K
students. It is ugly. Totally function driven and the wrong function.
The form takes place as rooms and space are allocated to a heiracrhy or
prioritized need. The main driving force to build around a building.
Another example is my lot. My function and form is defined by zoning.
The best thing I can do is build below ground and build a fence or hedge
around it. Even then it will take variances. If I build above ground I
have no yard 'cept the easements on the edges. Beyond boundries is my
call for form as well as function. In the world it appears that function
defines the form and for that reason alone it appears to follow.
Another example is the linearity of say video. Always a begining and end
with a message and audience as the norm of form following function. I say
beyond. Break the mold, unlearn, have no begining nor middle create noise,
have multi-messages strung together rapidly, slowly for many audiences.
Or for virtual space- no ends, no rooms, just x,y,z,time with variance and
displacement. Forms twirling through and back again or not. World without
end, Amen.
> Architecture is not form, it is not function alone. Architecture is
> the form that is inspired by function and driven by it. It is when we
> allow form to drive function that we gain buildings that are better
> placed in a museum than in the lives of people.
Pretty good copy Chris 'cept the "is inspired by" is a bit romantic, perhaps
"is the result of" would seem to fit what seems to occur.
John wrote: If form doesn't follow function,
> why are doors the size they are?
cause they were designed that way to fit budget
> why are they located where they are?
cause the designer needed to appease his client
> why does the roof as a form exist?
because the client's prequisite was shelter.
> why are sloped roofs sloped?
some aren't, perhaps the client would be pissed if the shelter falled
And why is form and function one?
Why don't desiners give themselves permission to free themselves rather
than take from the form that functions them?
Form may follow but there may be a lesson to break the boundries.
Jay