Form follows function

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Form follows function is a principle associated with Modern architecture and industrial design in the 20th Century, which states that the shape of a building or object should be predicated on its intended purpose.

In the context of design professions "form follows function" seems like good sense but on closer examination it becomes problematic and open to interpretation. Linking the relationship between the 'form' of an object and its intended purpose is a good idea for designers and architects, but it is not always by itself a complete design solution. Defining the precise meaning(s) of the phrase 'form follows function' opens a discussion of design integrity that remains an important, lively debate.

Contents 1 In architecture 2 In product design 3 In software engineering 4 Notes 5 External links 6 Other reading

[edit] In architecture

The origin of the phrase is traced back to the American sculptor Horatio Greenough, but it was American architectural giant Louis Henri Sullivan who adopted it and made it famous. Sullivan actually said 'form ever follows function', but the simpler (and less emphatic) phrase is the one usually remembered. For Sullivan this was distilled wisdom, an aesthetic credo, the single "rule that shall permit of no exception". The full quote is thus:

"It is the pervading law of all things organic and inorganic, Of all things physical and metaphysical, Of all things human and all things super-human, Of all true manifestations of the head, Of the heart, of the soul, That the life is recognizable in its expression, That form ever follows function. This is the law.”^[1]

Sullivan developed the shape of the tall steel skyscraper in late 19th Century Chicago at the very moment when technology, taste and economic forces converged violently and made it necessary to drop the established styles of the past. If the shape of the building wasn't going to be chosen out of the old pattern book something had to determine form, and according to Sullivan it was going to be the purpose of the building. It was 'form follows function', as opposed to 'form follows precedent'. Sullivan's assistant Frank Lloyd Wright adopted and professed the same principle in slightly different form—perhaps because shaking off the old styles gave them more freedom and latitude.

In 1908 the Austrian architect Adolf Loos famously proclaimed that architectural ornament was a crime, and his essay on that topic would become foundational to Modernism and eventually trigger the careers of Le Corbusier, Walter Gropius, Alvar Aalto, Mies van der Rohe and Gerrit Rietveld. The Modernists adopted both of these equations—form follows function, ornament is a crime—as moral principles, and they celebrated industrial artifacts like steel water towers as brilliant and beautiful examples of plain, simple, design integrity. Between 1945 and 1984 Modernism stood as the only respected architectural form in the mainstream of the profession. Everything else was illegitimate.

These two principles—form follows function, ornament is crime—are often invoked on the same occasions for the same reasons, but they do not mean the same thing. If you're willing to admit that ornament on a building may have social usefulness like aiding wayfinding, announcing the identity of the building, signaling scale, or attracting new customers inside, then ornament can be seen as functional, which puts those two articles of dogma at odds with each other.

Conversely the argument ‘ornament is crime’ doesn’t say anything about functions. It’s just an aesthetic preference for the machine age. In an epoch where the machine does all the work, the ornament is a relic that we can surpass. Therefore, another stylistic ‘non-functional’ features rest untouched (e.g., the feeling of space, the composition of the volumes) has we can see in the subsequent abstracted and non-ornamented styles. Much of the confusion between these two concepts comes from the fact that ornament derives traditionally from a function then becoming a stylistic character (e.g., the Gargoyle from the gothic cathedrals).

Modernism in architecture began as a disciplined effort to return to first principles, and allow the shape and logic of the building to be determined only by functional requirements, not by a traditional style or a random aesthetic choice. It presupposes that somebody has done his or her homework and developed those functional requirements. The resulting structures tended to be shockingly simpler, flatter, and lighter than their older neighbors; their functionality and refreshing nakedness looked as honest and inevitable as an airplane. A recognizable Modern vocabulary began to develop.

Today a small number of well-known architects, notably James Stewart Polshek, argue for some measure of architectural design integrity and responsibility to users. But as a whole the profession continues to be dominated by the view that architecture is a matter of aesthetics, and that form only follows form.

[edit] In product design

In the late 1910s the two principles of “form follows function” and “ornament is a crime” were effectively adopted by the designers of the Bauhaus and applied to the production of everyday objects like chairs, bedframes, toothbrushes, tunics, and teapots. Some of those forms were refined and purified to such an extreme degree that they became unusable by humans, but generally the Bauhaus still constructively influences the look, feel and function of consumer goods down to the present day.

One quiet landmark in the history of the inherent conflict between functional design and the demands of the marketplace happened in 1935, after the introduction of the streamlined Chrysler Airflow, when the auto industry halted serious aerodynamic research. As documented in Jeffrey Meikle’s “Twentieth Century Limited: Industrial Design in America, 1925 – 1939”, carmakers realized that optimal aerodynamic efficiency would result in a single optimal auto-body shape, a "teardrop" shape, which would not be good for unit sales. GM thereafter adopted two different positions on streamlining, one meant for its internal engineering community, the other meant for its customers. Like the annual model year change, so-called aerodynamic styling is often meaningless in terms of technical performance.

The American industrial designers of the 1930s and '40s like Raymond Loewy, Norman bel Geddes and Henry Dreyfuss grappled with the inherent contradictions of 'form follows function' as they redesigned blenders and locomotives and duplicating machines for mass-market consumption. Loewy formulated his ‘MAYA’ (Most Advanced Yet Acceptable) principle to express that product designs are bounded by functional constraints of math and materials and logic, but their acceptance is constrained by social expectations.

By honestly applying ‘form follows function’, industrial designers had the potential to advance their clients right out of business. Some simple single-purpose objects like screwdrivers and pencils and teapots might be reducible to a single optimal form, and through the eyes of a teapot maker that’s simply unacceptable. Some objects made too durable would prevent sales of replacements. From the standpoint of functionality some products are flatly unnecessary, and through the eyes of an electric-carving-knife maker that’s quite unacceptable.

Victor Papanek (died 1999) was an influential recent designer and design philosopher who taught and wrote as a proponent of "form follows function."

[edit] In software engineering

This principle can be applied to Enterprise Application Architectures of modern business where 'function' is the Business processes which should be assisted by the enterprise architecture, or 'form'. If the archicture dictates how the business operates then the business is likely to suffer from inflexiblity unable to adapt to change. SOA Service-Oriented Architecture have enabled Enterprise Architect to rearrange the 'form' of the architecture to meet the functional requirements of a business by adopting standards based communication protocols which enable interoperability.

[edit] Notes

[edit] External links

• "Form follows WHAT? The modernist notion of function as a carte blanche" - An alternative history and interpretation of the form-follows-function doctrine

[edit] Other reading

• Functional Formism:The Dictate and Reveal of Primary Function and Formative Expression. - A definitive architectural and applied design engineering categoric designation - irrespective of the period and stylate reference, other than taking subjective account of prevailing material(s) technology.

Outline Reference: Functional Formism: Gordon W Drew DipArch MArch PhD-FF/GWD/21-02-04(Rev:26-04-04)

Architectural Theory/Functional Formism/Applied Design Engineering:Addendum Reference: www.gwd-architecture.com