Form holding hands with Function

 When comparing my initial understanding of “postfunctionalim” with the discussion of others in class, I found that my personal oversimplified version missed the complexity of the subject matter. Tracing back to architecture school 101… form follows function… I have always understood that these two terms worked together in tandem, and could arguably stand as equals. This theory is something that I tend to fall back on while through my individual design process and frequently struggle with where I need to prioritize this subjective innovation, either towards form or towards function.

Yet following the readings, I see that in terms of modern architecture, Eisenman suggests to rather focus on the relationship between these terms as means to design form. He says that functionalism alone is outdated and old fashioned and highlights a balance between form and function as something that is possible, but also impossible when we strive for pure architecture. Pure architecture is not meant to purposely ignore function, but to design an object through a lens of what it represents and how to represent it. The notion of merging the two sides of the argument, being form and function, allows for a greater ability to evolve the form of the built environment. With the intent of an idealistic city, one that is too ambitious to ever achieve, form and function must walk together, somewhat holding hands, to progress how we design. To focus only on the function of a building seems to ignore half of the design challenge, and won’t bring us any closer to our beloved and modern day utopia.