I would like to start a new discussion on the idea of form and
function. The discussion last semester ended up with misunderstandings
built on misunderstandings, and at the time, I missed what occurred here
since I was not yet subscribed.
To make sure a constructive discussion occurs this time, I will set up
some definitions for the terms "form" and "function", which should be used
throughout the discussion, since in general, they can be interpreted in many,
often confusing and conflicting, ways (in any responses, one should assume
these definitions to be "default" and for any other use, the terms should be
clearly redefined; it might also be wise to reprint the following definitions
in each new article).
The definitions are derived from what I presume was meant by
Louis Sullivan and Frank Lloyd Wright in their famous phrases, "form follows
function" and "form and function are one."
Essentially, in their use, "form" and "function" are two different
types of _descriptions_ of an object. "Form" is a description of _physical_
properties, and "Function" is a description of specific _abstract_ properties:
"form": physical properties/characteristics of an object,
such as shape, materials, etc.
"function": the abstract purpose(s) that an object can be
used for, inherent in the object, without any
regard for any original intentions of the
designer.
With these definitions, it should be clear that "form and function are one"
(and "form follows function") is indisputable. That is, for any object, its
"form" and "function" are inherent properties which are inseparably related:
Every object has both "form" and "function", and for any
object that has a certain "form", it can only have certain
"functions" (usually many);
and for any (theoretical) object that has a certain
"function", it can only have certain "forms" (usually many
in this case, too).
[ An example: An architect designs a fountain next to his building, with only ]
[ the intention of it as a "work of art" to be admired at. The "form" of the ]
[ fountain included a low ledge around the pool of water and a distinctive ]
[ water spout. This object, physically described by its "form", also has ]
[ inherent "functions." Dictated by the "form", some of the "functions" are ]
[ that the low ledge functions as a seat, the water functions as a play ]
[ area on hot summer days, and the distinctive spout functions as a visual ]
[ sign for the building---all of these, in addition to the intended functions ]
[ thought up of by the architect. ]
"Form and function are one" is indisputable with these definitions since the
definitions were "set up" to work that way (essentially, "circular logic").
The reason for doing this is with the hope that there will be some use for
thinking in this manner.
Therefore, the only points that are arguable are the following:
1. Are the definitions valid definitions? (i.e., the
definitions are what is being assumed in the
the "argument"---so are these assumptions valid?)
2. Is it useful to say this? To think in this way?
To begin with, the definitions seem valid to me, but I may easily be missing
something (the definition for "function" may be too vague?).
For the second (and most crucial) point, I think that it is useful to think in
this manner when designing. The purpose of any design is to create a physical
"form" for a required "function" (always, of course, this "function" is a
collection of many, many more specific functions, which each influence the
total form in their own manner). The design process can be thought of as
finding a "form" (there would probably be an infinite number of forms for any
function) for the intended "function"---or "form should follow intended
function"/"form and intended function should be one".
In the "perfect" design, form follows all the intended and required functions.
Is it possible to design the "perfect" design? Well, I will end with
Artist/Architect Will Bruder's thoughts on this:
"A real architect must be humble enough to realize perfection
is impossible, but arrogant enough to keep reaching for it!"
(from speech at Arizona Biltmore, Thanksgiving Day, 1993)
After all of this, I hope there will be some discussion.... :)
John Tsuchiya
function. The discussion last semester ended up with misunderstandings
built on misunderstandings, and at the time, I missed what occurred here
since I was not yet subscribed.
To make sure a constructive discussion occurs this time, I will set up
some definitions for the terms "form" and "function", which should be used
throughout the discussion, since in general, they can be interpreted in many,
often confusing and conflicting, ways (in any responses, one should assume
these definitions to be "default" and for any other use, the terms should be
clearly redefined; it might also be wise to reprint the following definitions
in each new article).
The definitions are derived from what I presume was meant by
Louis Sullivan and Frank Lloyd Wright in their famous phrases, "form follows
function" and "form and function are one."
Essentially, in their use, "form" and "function" are two different
types of _descriptions_ of an object. "Form" is a description of _physical_
properties, and "Function" is a description of specific _abstract_ properties:
"form": physical properties/characteristics of an object,
such as shape, materials, etc.
"function": the abstract purpose(s) that an object can be
used for, inherent in the object, without any
regard for any original intentions of the
designer.
With these definitions, it should be clear that "form and function are one"
(and "form follows function") is indisputable. That is, for any object, its
"form" and "function" are inherent properties which are inseparably related:
Every object has both "form" and "function", and for any
object that has a certain "form", it can only have certain
"functions" (usually many);
and for any (theoretical) object that has a certain
"function", it can only have certain "forms" (usually many
in this case, too).
[ An example: An architect designs a fountain next to his building, with only ]
[ the intention of it as a "work of art" to be admired at. The "form" of the ]
[ fountain included a low ledge around the pool of water and a distinctive ]
[ water spout. This object, physically described by its "form", also has ]
[ inherent "functions." Dictated by the "form", some of the "functions" are ]
[ that the low ledge functions as a seat, the water functions as a play ]
[ area on hot summer days, and the distinctive spout functions as a visual ]
[ sign for the building---all of these, in addition to the intended functions ]
[ thought up of by the architect. ]
"Form and function are one" is indisputable with these definitions since the
definitions were "set up" to work that way (essentially, "circular logic").
The reason for doing this is with the hope that there will be some use for
thinking in this manner.
Therefore, the only points that are arguable are the following:
1. Are the definitions valid definitions? (i.e., the
definitions are what is being assumed in the
the "argument"---so are these assumptions valid?)
2. Is it useful to say this? To think in this way?
To begin with, the definitions seem valid to me, but I may easily be missing
something (the definition for "function" may be too vague?).
For the second (and most crucial) point, I think that it is useful to think in
this manner when designing. The purpose of any design is to create a physical
"form" for a required "function" (always, of course, this "function" is a
collection of many, many more specific functions, which each influence the
total form in their own manner). The design process can be thought of as
finding a "form" (there would probably be an infinite number of forms for any
function) for the intended "function"---or "form should follow intended
function"/"form and intended function should be one".
In the "perfect" design, form follows all the intended and required functions.
Is it possible to design the "perfect" design? Well, I will end with
Artist/Architect Will Bruder's thoughts on this:
"A real architect must be humble enough to realize perfection
is impossible, but arrogant enough to keep reaching for it!"
(from speech at Arizona Biltmore, Thanksgiving Day, 1993)
After all of this, I hope there will be some discussion.... :)
John Tsuchiya