Function Follows Form

[ArchiMotion]

[mx2]

[ArchiMotion]

Yes, from my last paragraph above new ideas began to emerge. It is that there is an inter-dependency between various elements in the architectural equation, to the extent that depending on one's methodology, and the application of the various elements into the architectural equation, the resulting product will maintain either a high level dosage of FFF radiation, or, the Form will be chosen as a function which in turn will govern the ultimate aesthetic behavior of the composition, thus imposing it's own restrictions on the inverse function, which now becomes somewhat subservient to the primary intended function of form. Thus, if we establish a linear path between form and function, we will tend to end up with forms more restrictively related to the primary function of interior architectural defined space. When we adopt the inverse path, with the governing form as determined by aesthetics, we have established a new primary function, which other functions begin to serve. Thus, in this case, we can almost say that our new subservient functions are following our form. So we need to create in a graph format a hierarchy of functions into our programmatic planning to the extent that we are able to better visualize this inter-dependency relationship.

In the case of the moving building, the primary function in the skin seems to be of providing energy. Then the next main governing element is the form chosen. Next, the architecture and structure becoming subservient to these. Now, if the intended function does not work as intended, the entire project could become compromised. Thus, a layout of this hierarchy will reveal the priorities as established by the architect.

It seems that an ideal scenario really is one in which there is greater inter-dependency of the skins in the onion. As demonstrated, when as architecture, aesthetics and structure become one with the intended function, and serve the same in a symbiotic relationship. They all become an integral part of the intended function, with the levels of hierarchy varying according to the desired placing of the elements into the equation.

Much of Architecture I see as basically responding to the program in a direct form follows function relationship, with aesthetics in mind, but not as the governing function. Aesthetics essentially is the function which we may establish at the higher hierarchy of the equation, when we choose a form to govern the concept. In this case, the architecture is a result of this chosen aesthetic function, so the balance becomes more difficult to manage in such as way that the governing aesthetics and the programmatic requirements are met in the balanced chosen form, as expressed in the concept. Structure comes in as the ideal fit between the chosen higher function of aesthetics, and the underlying satisfaction of the programmatic needs in the architecture itself. We would then see in this relationship something to the effect of AESTHETICS (FORM) --->> STRUCTURAL SOLUTION --->> ARCHITECTURE and program fit this pre-established chosen form. All three elements in the equation are chosen so that there is a continual symbiotic relationship among them. Thus, in the ideal scenario, all three elements are chosen simultaneously, rather then in a liner fashion. But this is frequently not the case, as technical issues arise that may not be predicted.

So this further establishes that the axiom Form Follows Function becomes one of practical dictum rather then one of ideal design methodology. Rather, the priorities that govern the hierarchy become the determining elements in the equation, rather then simply FFF.

So now, as having originally suggested a possibility of the reversal of this relationship at times, I also have an interest to establish this new vision, with the hope of progressing architectural theory and practice.

[djswan]

You said it. various elements.

[csintexas]

[mx2]

copied from Wiki...

[csintexas]

No citation was given for that so it may be conjecture.

In any case I have long stated that we can find examples of buildings which are a product of function following form. I don't see any point in proving what has already been proved.

I have also stated that there is room in society for art. Particularly in public buildings whose function is entertainment.

The final proof is in the pudding.

What was Utzon thinking? (Was function are form his primary concern)
What was the inspiration? (nature?)
How has the building performed over time?
Is there a better concert hall based on the knowledge of that time?

[csintexas]

I am having trouble understanding you premise.

I say: In general it is best to let function dictate the form of a useful object.

You say?

No, it is best to let form dictate the function of a useful object?

No, it is best to let concept dictate the form of a useful object?

No, any method is as good as another?

What exactly is your premise?


The last one seems most likely:
Any method is as good as another.

In order to prove if this is correct we can observe buildings in general. We would need to select two random groups of buildings which are representative of architecture as a whole. One group designed by the designers following the form follows function principle and the other following the (concept dictates form?) principle. And then determine which group produces the best results.

These can be judged in to distinct ways, physical evidence and perceived value.

[lekizz]

[mx2]

It's humorous that the both of you would nitpick the details of irrelevant parts of the main subject: it is well known that the controversy surrounding the Sydney Opera house did not help Utzon's career. He became a hero to some, an enemy to others...an issue arising from the very subject we were discussing; form and function.

I am not arguing that form is the dictating element in design, not at all. I am arguing that to evangelize "form follows function" is not in the best interest of designers either. If everyone, including Jorn follows one way of thinking ( a la Vitruvian Laws) then there is no room for experimentation in the quality of living...in the way we create spaces.

mx2.5

[lekizz]

Ouch! Okay I fell into the trap of showing off that I'd read a book

But if you wanted the thread to stay on topic, then why lazily paste an entire (disputable) Wiki article on this that and the other? The opposite of nit picking methinks

[djswan]

Never let them know you read books.

I like the 999 post.

Whatcha think of the pic I posted?

[csintexas]

I was trying to come up with some point of your post. How was I to know you don't have one?
( I should have guessed)

Everybody including Jorn does not follow one way of thinking, they never have and I can postulate with a great deal of certainty that they never will.

What I would like to remove is this continued implication that form follows function some how limits creativity or variety or means in itself that we can not have buildings like the Sydney Opera House.

[mx2]

[djswan]

Cheers!! Vodka cranberry here. Yes, I make no point but architecture I can do.

The architect of that house outside Cody, Wyoming died in a fall working on the roof. He spent 20 years working on it I was told.

Whatcha think?