The phrase “form ever follows function” was first introduced by Louis Sullivan “father of skyscrapers” which was an influential architect and critic, in his article The Tall Office Building Artistically Considered (1896) “Whether it be the sweeping eagle in his flight, or the open apple-blossom, the toiling workhorse, the blithe swan, the branching oak, the winding stream at its base, the drifting clouds over all the coursing sun, form ever follows function, and this is the law” (p 5). The principal for any design in any discipline is that form follows function; if an item must accomplish a certain function, then its design must aid that function to the fullest extent possible. But in our modern days most designs tend to favor form in almost all the disciplines prioritizing the appearance and neglecting the safety and the main function of the design or invention, those slipups can be seen in many of the famous industries, and that is what made them famous because beauty and appearance sells. Most designs efforts should focus on function rather than form because function is the reason why the design is created in the first place, whereas form is just an appearance which is inferior. …show more content…
For example the automotive industries reducing the function and safety of the cars to increase the form of the car itself, the fact that people prefer to buy a car for its appearance rather than its safety and efficiency is erroneous as the statistics show “efficient vehicles suffered mightily: sales of the Toyota Camry Hybrid dropped 40 percent, Civic Hybrid sales plummeted by 77 percent and Honda Fit numbers fell off by 19.7 percent” (John Sousanis,
“Form follows function.” Every great Modern architect thought, designed by and breathed these very words. Or at least, their design principles evolved from them. Modern architects Le Corbusier, Mies van der Rohe, Frank Lloyd Wright, Pierre Chareau, and Rudolf Schindler to name a few believed that the function determined the space whether the space was solely for a particular purpose or they overlapped to allow for multiple uses. Form didn’t just follow function, function defined the space. By focusing on the relationship between the architecture and the interior elements, Chareau’s Maison de Verre expanded the idea of functionalism to include not only the architecture but also the space it creates and how people function within that space.
In the early twentieth century the Modern movement of architecture and industrial design came about. This movement was a reaction to the change within society and the introduction of new technologies. The ever changing world and technology meant artists to evolve alongside the changing world and this kind of ‘industrial revolution’ that was happening. Modernists ideas have seeped into every form of design especially architecture and design. Although most modernists insisted they were not following any style in particular, their work is instantly
True architects are needed to create architectural beauty and they do so by using “elements which are capable of affecting our senses, and of rewarding the desire of our eyes...the sight of them affects us immediately” (16). Le Corbusier’s says that we must standardize architecture with respect to function so that we can mass produce it until we perfect its aesthetic through competition and innovation. Le Corbusier believed that Architecture schools weren’t teaching students correctly and that engineers would be the ones who save architecture. Architecture is a thing of plastic emotion. “It should use elements capable of striking our senses, of satisfying our visual desires…arranging them in a way that the sight of them clearly affects
The “ten commandments” of Dieter Rams concerning what a good design is or should be summarizes the essentials of a good design. What this paper seeks to do is to analyze and scrutinize these statements alongside Dieter Rams’ speech, discussing whether these principles capture what a good design is and what is not, making modifications to the principles where necessary.
From the early Greek temples of yesteryear, to the high-tech autonomous buildings of tomorrow, the question of whether the function of a building or its aesthetics qualities are more important has plagued the minds of architects around the world. Webster's II New College Dictionary (Please do not use the encyclopedia or the dictionary to open your essay--way too high school.) defines aesthetics as "The branch of philosophy that provides a theory of the beautiful and of the fine arts" (18). The definition of Functionalism is defined by Webster's as "The doctrine that the function of an object should determine its design and materials" (453). Now, if the function of an object decides the type of design and materials used how does one integrate aesthetics into design, and moreover, how important are aesthetics to an architect? Frank Lloyd Wright was one of the greatest and most renowned architects of the 19th and 20th centuries, and while his buildings where lauded for displaying great artistic design, the issue of function was compromised by the blatant fact that his roofs leaked. This is because he let the aesthetics of his buildings become the focus of the structure, and neglected to adequately address the function of the building allowing for this problem to take root in his designs (Palermo, 4 Mar. 1999). As is apparent from Frank Lloyd Wright, there is a certain balance that has to be attained between aesthetics and functionalism in order for a structure to be appreciated as a successful building.
Christopher Alexander’s Notes on the Synthesis of Form provides a generalization of explaining design problems. The ultimate object of design is form, and
The essence of modern architecture lays in a remarkable strives to reconcile the core principles of architectural design with rapid technological advancement and the modernization of society. However, it took “the form of numerous movements, schools of design, and architectural styles, some in tension with one another, and often equally defying such classification, to establish modernism as a distinctive architectural movement” (Robinson and Foell). Although, the narrower concept of modernism in architecture is broadly characterized by simplification of form and subtraction of ornament from the structure and theme of the building, meaning that the result of design should derive directly from its purpose; the visual expression of the structure, particularly the visual importance of the horizontal and vertical lines typical for the International Style modernism, the use of industrially-produced materials and adaptation of the machine aesthetic, as well as the truth to materials concept, meaning that the true nat...
This rule also applies on a larger scale when considering neighborhoods, even cities. In this way, the "complexities and contradictions" at the heart of this book should manifest themselves in the architectural program as a reflection of those complexities and contradictions inherent in daily living. Several ideologies of architects are compared and contrasted within this chapter: Mies: "create order out of the desperate confusion of our time;" Kahn: "by order I do not mean orderliness," and Le Corbusier, "There is no work of art without a system." Though Venturi's opinions seem to be more in line with Kahn's statement, he credits the idea of order in some ways, suggesting that "order must exist before it can be broken." In order to create the "anomalies and uncertainties" that "give validity to architecture," the architecture must be reacting against something. So while "there are no fixed laws," architecture benefits from some sense of order or a system so that it can react. Because systems cannot accommodate every circumstance, architecture should strive to defy order or create a new order. The altering or breaking of order enhances the deeper meanings of the
Jencks believes “the glass-and-steel box has become the single most used form in Modern Architecture and it signifies throughout the world ‘office building’” (27). Thus, modern architecture is univalent in terms of form, in other words it is designed around one out of a few basic values using a limited number of materials and right angles. In...
Functionalism is therefore a value. The study of the backgrounds of functionalism in architecture involves the larger problem of the value of use and specifically, the place of fitness in beauty. The meanings of the terms used – function, fitness, utility, and purpose – will vary somewhat with each writer
Simon Unwin, the author of the book ‘Analysing Architecture’ says that the ‘the purpose of architecture is to design buildings’ is an unsatisfactory definition because the definition limits architecture to just the design of buildings. He feels that architecture involves more than just designing buildings. He also believes that the definition fails to explain the real purpose of architecture and transfers the problem of comprehending the word ‘architecture’ to the word ‘building’. This definition doesn’t go in-depth to analyze and understand the essence of architecture in our everyday lives. It fails to relate human life and needs to the buildings built.
In comparison to his peers, Renzo Piano was in a way, different, or stood out against the other up and coming architects of the time. Whilst these other architects, Kahn, Gehry, and Ando’s design philosophies are mostly focused on the development of the form and the experience, Piano’s design intent was almost always on the function, could he build a building that functions, while keeping it light, especially in structure.
In conclusion, although the development of modern architecture and the intervention of computer technology to advocate this development, the contemporary architectural outcomes have became more complex and complicated with potential formulation problems. As a result, the new architecture theories came to put boundary lines between being in the range of these problems and producing elegant modern built environment. The seduction of computer-produced form also enhances architects to involve in seeking for new theories to develop the discipline and work to combine formulization with materialization. Finally, some of these theories are accepted and some other still a controversial aspect in architecture.
Abstract: Contemporary architects have a wide variety of sources to gain inspiration from, but this has not always been the case. How did modernism effect sources of inspiration? What did post-modernism do to liberate the choice of influences? Now that Contemporary architects have the freedom of choice, how are they using “traditional” styles and materials to inspire them? Even after modernism why are traditional styles still around?
...But however some engineers often love to challenge themselves by making plans that balance functional value of aesthetic appeal. In communities they emphasize contemporary design structure, engineers often renovate or rebuild more creative structures where older, more traditional structures once stood.