- - The original note follows - -
Newsgroups: alt.architecture
Path:
psuvm!news.cac.psu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!uunet!olivea!hal.com!decwrl!
amd!netcomsv!netcom.com!gibsonf1
From: gibsonf1@xxxxxxxxxx (Frederick Clifford Gibson)
Subject: Form: The natural approach
Message-ID: <gibsonf1CEtDHH.FGp@xxxxxxxxxx>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1993 02:27:15 GMT
Lines: 27
A controversial cliche needs clarification.
The cliche, "Form and Function are one", coined to the best of my knowledge
by FLLW, is a concept about integration.
The problem with the cliche "Form follows Function" (coined by Sullivan?),
is that this creates an artificial dichotomy between Form and Function.
My argument is that Form and Function must be integrated to create good/
great architecture. Moreover, the measure of greatness is the extent
that a design integrates all of the elements of the total context of
a design problem. (i.e.: Falling Water)l
A Natural Analogy:
The hand. A Complex form to perform complex functions. Could the hand
be redesigned with a purely functional approach and take on a new form?
Could the hand be redesigned with a "Form First" approach
yet continue to function the same?
Food for thought...
Fred Gibson
Designer, KMD Architects - San Francisco
gibsonf1@xxxxxxxxxx
Newsgroups: alt.architecture
Path:
psuvm!news.cac.psu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!uunet!olivea!hal.com!decwrl!
amd!netcomsv!netcom.com!gibsonf1
From: gibsonf1@xxxxxxxxxx (Frederick Clifford Gibson)
Subject: Form: The natural approach
Message-ID: <gibsonf1CEtDHH.FGp@xxxxxxxxxx>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1993 02:27:15 GMT
Lines: 27
A controversial cliche needs clarification.
The cliche, "Form and Function are one", coined to the best of my knowledge
by FLLW, is a concept about integration.
The problem with the cliche "Form follows Function" (coined by Sullivan?),
is that this creates an artificial dichotomy between Form and Function.
My argument is that Form and Function must be integrated to create good/
great architecture. Moreover, the measure of greatness is the extent
that a design integrates all of the elements of the total context of
a design problem. (i.e.: Falling Water)l
A Natural Analogy:
The hand. A Complex form to perform complex functions. Could the hand
be redesigned with a purely functional approach and take on a new form?
Could the hand be redesigned with a "Form First" approach
yet continue to function the same?
Food for thought...
Fred Gibson
Designer, KMD Architects - San Francisco
gibsonf1@xxxxxxxxxx