Form-Function Ouroboros
After sifting the meaning like one pans for gold from Peter Eisenman’s remarks on form and function, I found myself asking, is the tension between complex form and complex function in modern and functionalist architecture really such a shortcoming as he makes it out to be? Perhaps the form-follows-function pipeline is indeed a fast-dying linear approach to design in an increasingly nuanced built environment, but it’s become evident that an iterative, cyclical process is more definitive of design. Form follows function follows form again and so on. To believe there is one correct sequence of architectural design that applies to every project in every location seems limiting. Especially based on the wide range of projects we viewed this week, it’s clear that theory is situational.
Austin,
ReplyDeleteI agree with your perspective on there being no correct sequence of architecture. In my opinion, well executed architecture should consistently produce the desired outcome when designed with meaningful intent.
I definitely agree that form and function exist in a cyclical nature and are more intertwined than they are separate. I think it is up to the designer which one they will focus on enhancing - but the architects who insist on building absurd geometries still need more convincing arguments for their design intent. I think the most successful projects have a more balanced combination of form and function, showing respect for the user and creating beauty through purpose.
ReplyDeleteI agree on your perspective that going in a sequence seems limiting. However, I think it helps some people to design. For instance, someone might need to go through a set of steps to get to the end goal but that individual should not be constrained by it.
ReplyDelete