This message has been cross posted to the following Discussion Forums: Regional and Urban Design Committee and Committee on Design .
-------------------------------------------
I've read three comments recently that I'd like to bring to your attention. In a way, they represent the differences in emphasis (not necessarily opinion) that seem to be surfacing in the Committee on Design discussion regarding the measurement of design excellence.
1) "I think, with all deference to Sullivan, it is not really useful to talk about what follows what. I believe that form is the means, function is the end. All we can really do is FORM spaces and surfaces using building systems, materials, and products, for human occupation."
2) "When it comes to great designers, I agree that, most of the time, when I hear "form follows function"; what follows is neither functional nor elegant. That is very different from thinking the concept is empty. I am a firm believer in the value of the form follows function idea and I love the writings of Louis Sullivan. I never have been able to see much indication of form following function in Sullivan's work. Sometimes the useful heuristic works in mysterious ways."
3) "Harking back just a little bit, I am surprised that no one has mentioned the real quote from Louis Sullivan:
'Form Follows Function is mere dogma, until you realize the higher truth that form and function are one.'
It does not matter what dictionary definition one gives to the terms, so long as the terms are viable in the context of the immediate project and consonant with one another."
COMMENT 1
I think I understand the first sentence. The claim is that form makes function possible. This may be true from an architect's perspective; but from an organic perspective, form does not define function. It responds to purpose. When the purpose is fine art, the public benefit from these decisions is limited. When the purpose is a symbiotic relationship with an irreplaceable partner, the public benefit is obvious. The challenge is to define architectural purpose in terms that can lead many to an adopted goal.
Design has never been a linear exercise even though Sullivan made it sound like one. The more skilled an architect becomes the more he is able to reconcile the variables in a very complex equation. He cannot write the equation but his training permits him to find a solution. The best answers are called fine art, but the process of decision is called design - and it begins with the land. Some may argue that it begins with the program, but if a program cannot be accommodated by the land available, subject to the restrictions involved, it is an exercise in futility
If architects can only form spaces and surfaces with building systems, materials and products, then we have abdicated a leadership role in the sustainable future of our built environment. There is nothing wrong with this decision, but the perception of public benefit is diminished to the level many are now trying to improve. These are tactical decisions that await leadership direction. It's similar to the unsafe, unsanitary buildings that awaited leadership direction and separation from threatening land use activity. This leadership had to be imposed because the tactical decisions being made were inadequate.
I realize that you cannot expect leadership goals and strategic decisions from tactical field operations, but when field experience is not evaluated with an adequate measurement system, future direction and decision is compromised by the lack of knowledge acquired. If the goal is tactical improvement, then strategic leadership will have to come from another direction. If the goal is symbiotic improvement, then knowledge must be expanded and the troops will need better weapons from advanced research and education. In my opinion, this all means that we must agree on a functional goal before we can measure the beauty and contribution of each solution. Right now we are debating the excellence of individual projects, but this is a tactical debate. In my opinion, the leadership question is the relationship of form, function and appearance to land development capacity and intensity within a limited Built Domain. I base my opinion on the belief that the Built Domain cannot indefinitely expand in response to the activities of a growing population. The Natural Domain will simply not permit the hubris involved.
COMMENT 2
I couldn't agree more with this observation. The only link I ever saw was the nature of Sullivan's incomparable decoration. Wright expanded the link with organic form and style that could not be duplicated without obvious emulation (except for Richard Neutra), but all of them depended on engineering innovations. From this perspective, form and function followed invention while style became organic symbolism. Floor plan, section and detail are the architectural equivalent of engineering function, but the contributions have never been that obvious until you enter complex buildings, such as hospitals.
I love the sentence, "Sometimes the useful heuristic works in mysterious ways." I believe Sullivan and Wright pointed to a symbiotic future they could not see, but that must be achieved. They left an ambiguous trail for others to follow, but it is the path toward symbiotic architectural function within and beyond the box. It will be based on the development capacity evaluation of shelter options within a Built Domain that does not permit intensity to threaten our dignity and quality of life.
COMMENT 3
I'm not familiar with the Sullivan quotation mentioned. It sounds like he was trying to explain his earlier text:
"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."
The quote below, however, is what drew my attention:
"It does not matter what dictionary definition one gives to the terms (form and function), so long as the terms are viable in the context of the immediate project and consonant with one another."
Architects have focused on "...context of the immediate project" for obvious reasons. I'm assuming that "...consonant with one another" means the relationship of form and function on the same project and not city design, because no one has had the tools to attempt this venture and defend it from inevitable legal challenge. (Land use planning is not city design. All architects will immediately recognize the two-dimensional nature of a plan and the three-dimensional nature of urban form that can emerge from city design decisions.)
I'm including several paragraphs from my book to expand on the useful heuristic of Sullivan's mysterious ways. Please excuse the book reference at the end. My publisher still considers this a business and he's not an architect.
"Form follows function ... is an ambiguous slogan with at least two meanings. The first is often used by architecture and industrial design to mean that the external envelope and appearance of a man-made object reflects its internal arrangement, structure and operation. The second means that interrelated external influences determine the internal operation and visible shape of the natural object observed. In other words, the first refers to the artificial objects we build and says that form follows internal structure and function. The second refers to the natural world around us and says that form and function adapt to interrelated external influences.
Sullivan's meaning can be interpreted either way, but the first definition has been the most influential within architecture and the larger development community, since it corresponds to the objects created. The double meaning became more ambiguous with Wright's claim that his architecture was "organic", which implies symbiotic relationships but is limited to the form, detail and appearance produced. We are beginning to realize however, that the first interpretation of Sullivan's quote is too introverted to produce a sustainable future; but adopting the second is still a dream that requires new tools, better research, expanded knowledge, improved coordination and leadership at the national level.
In our abstract world therefore, form is presently a function of attitude and opinion. It is not an organic creation with symbiotic purpose. Until it is, our cities and shelter will continue to grow in a sprawling pattern whose form betrays a function that has led to new levels of concern; since it expands, dominates and pollutes with little regard for, or contribution to, the natural systems (and resources) it consumes." (The parenthetical addition is what I wish I had included based on this reading. All designers will understand that there is always another option to consider, but that the privilege to create is rarely given without a deadline.)
Excerpt from Hosack, Walter Martin, Land Development Calculations, ed 2, The McGraw-Hill Companies, 2010, pp. 518-519.
-------------------------------------------
Walter Hosack
Author
Walter M. Hosack
Dublin OH
-------------------------------------------