Chairs?
I must admit that I often have a hard time with theory and need to process it in layman's terms. The idea that form should not follow function as Eisenman is proposing is hard for me to swallow. It goes against everything I have been taught as a foundation of design, starting in undergrad in Interior Design. It may be my undergraduate studies speaking, and an over simplification of a big idea but when I think about "good" design I always go back to a chair. There are a lot of chairs that are beautiful and that look really cool, but I would never want to spend more than a short time in them. The idea that "form follows function" was first shown to me at a tour of an office furniture company, Humanscale. A man quizzed us students on the idea and went on to explain through the chair all the ways its form served its function. I was impressed with the chair and after using it I agreed with points he made. A fold up lawn chair may not be the most comfortable chair, but if the function of a lawn chair is to be mobile and easily set up then its form serves its function well and I would argue that it is a successful chair. Sure, there may be "better" lawn chairs if the design is comfortable or provides a cup holder, but wouldn't they be "better" because they were providing more functions for their purpose? 
To bring this back to formal architecture, I have a hard time connecting with the idea that a building's function should be independent of its form or have no function at all, like the scaffolding structure of the Wexler Center for the Arts, which doesn't provide any shelter from the elements. Yes, it does serve as a corridor and method of circulation but if that is what architecture "should be" then I don't believe architecture as a profession would exist for very long. If it did it would be something entirely different and be a profession of extremely high-cost sculpture.
I get the point you are making about the chairs, but I personally don't think that function is the sole purpose of architecture...because we as architects (should) strive to create experiential, beautiful spaces.
ReplyDeleteTo your point of not thinking architecture would last when form takes precedent... I would have to say I believe the exact opposite. I think if form is completely absent with only function then why would we need architects; hence, why couldn't engineers and contractors just design the bare minimum spaces to get the job done?
Completely agree with what you are saying. In my opinion architecture can look as fancy and "hot" as it wants; but what really matters is if the users are comfortable within it and feel at home. Also recliners are the best.
ReplyDeleteForm is part of function. Hard agree that first of all buildings should work for their users, but appearance is part of that experience.
ReplyDeleteIn a humorous and simple way I feel like you summed up the argument very well. I agree that if all architectural projects took their own liberties that the profession itself might lose its reputation. However if we are the ones who are in charge of the ultimate design direction, I believe it is our job to challenge the client for lack of a better phrase "to try new things". Who knows, they might even end up liking some weird, pointless canopies along the way.
ReplyDeleteTre,
ReplyDeleteHow do we measure experience, memory, and place finding in terms of fulfilling functionality? More so, how do we address function that will inevitably change? I say with form - sort of.
We have the privilege to dissect Louis Sullivan's notion, but it cannot be a lens through which we view all of architectural theory. His criticism towards architecture is entirely relevant but if we allow form to take the backseat to function then we inevitably become ill prepared for adaptation, resiliency, and a regenerative use of the buildings we design. We design for function now but the 'form' will dictate function of the future - we cannot prepare our buildings to be torn down when functions change.
I agree with Celia but would add that Form and Function individually and irrespective of the other are easy to solve. Together however, more or less as equals, is the challenge for designers.