|
View previous topic :: View next topic
|
| Author |
Message |
BJR
Joined: 31 Jan 2006
Posts: 248
|
 Posted: Tue Mar 14, 2006 12:18 pm Post subject: |
    |
|
message removed
Last edited by BJR on Mon Sep 11, 2006 1:44 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
csintexas
millennium club
Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 2227
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 14, 2006 12:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
barireid so from this i read that you think it is possible to design a building which is only concerned by efficiency of function. Can you back this claim up? that was my point earlier, so please don't reply to me this time about saying you were mis quoted or whatever, all i would like to know or see is an example where only the most efficient ways of accomplishing the function have been done
I do not have an example but I would say that it is theoreticaly possible. What would be only fuctional without considering form?
We need a very simple example -how about a dog house?
The basic function is to provide shelter for a dog at minimum cost.
(the requirements for shelter vary with location but that does not matter)
The cost would be determined by the initial cost and maintenance throughout the projected life of this structure.
We have to have an entry for the dog to get into it, perhaps a flap to help keep cold air out someway to enclose the space and a roof to keep the rain out.
For the exterior envelope we can pick the most efficient shape. This depends on what is available. A cardboard box may do well but it would not last very long. A flat roof may be easy to build but harder to maintain.
Do we have to consider anything about the door other than the size and shape it needs to be for the dog to get through it?
Do we need to consider anything about the envelope besides what is the cheapest way to enclose this space for X amount of time?
_________________
-Chris Stewart
http://bcshdb.blogspot.com >
The B/CS Home Design Blog |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
csintexas
millennium club
Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 2227
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 14, 2006 12:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
fair point chris but how do you expect people to understand exactly what you mean and which particular stance you are taking on an issue? all you have to go on is the small sentences and paragraphs, what is the point in a discussion forum if you can't discuss things without knowing everybodys view on everything? it would indeed render a forum completely useless!!
By asking a question just like I said in that post.
_________________
-Chris Stewart
http://bcshdb.blogspot.com >
The B/CS Home Design Blog |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BJR
Joined: 31 Jan 2006
Posts: 248
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 14, 2006 12:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
message removed
Last edited by BJR on Mon Sep 11, 2006 1:44 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
csintexas
millennium club
Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 2227
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 14, 2006 12:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Of coarse a dog house is architecture.
Main Entry: architecture
Pronunciation: 'är-k&-"tek-ch&r
Function: noun
1 : the art or science of building; specifically : the art or practice of designing and building structures and especially habitable ones
2 a : formation or construction as or as if as the result of conscious act <the architecture of the garden> b : a unifying or coherent form or structure <the novel lacks architecture>
3 : architectural product or work
4 : a method or style of building
5 : the manner in which the components of a computer or computer system are organized and integrated
How could it be anything but architecture? Designing for a dogs needs may be much simpler than designing for a humans needs but they are essentially the same thing.
We could also design that dog house by considering it as art. We could look at its relationship to the peoples house, the yard, the breed of dog, or any other consideration we might give a design meant for humans. Wouldn't it be architecture then?
_________________
-Chris Stewart
http://bcshdb.blogspot.com >
The B/CS Home Design Blog |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BJR
Joined: 31 Jan 2006
Posts: 248
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 14, 2006 1:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
message removed
Last edited by BJR on Mon Sep 11, 2006 1:45 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
csintexas
millennium club
Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 2227
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 14, 2006 2:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It would certainly take all the art out and just leave the science in.
That was my point though. Just as you had earlier pointed out that:
this is becasue beauty is purely subjective and cannot be quantified in any way, something i find beautiful, you may say is ugly. So this is a totally irrelevant issue, its almost impossible to discuss the beauty of a building. It is not impossible however to discuss the form of a building, beauty/form are two entirely different issues.
I would say that beauty(looks) and form are in fact the same thing and cannot be considered in calling something architecture.
An ugly building is architecture and so is a poorly designed one.
_________________
-Chris Stewart
http://bcshdb.blogspot.com >
The B/CS Home Design Blog |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BJR
Joined: 31 Jan 2006
Posts: 248
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 14, 2006 2:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
message removed
Last edited by BJR on Mon Sep 11, 2006 1:45 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lekizz
millennium club
Joined: 11 Jan 2006
Posts: 1217
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 14, 2006 6:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You said earlier that you did not understand my earlier statement chris, re "Form follows Function" being a historically specific polemic.
Polemic, as I understand it, is a point or argument made in an strong way - 'bending the stick' in words.
"form follows function" appears to be a soundbite that was used to counter the overly decorative, classical designs of the pre-Great War era. Was it Louis Sullivan that originated the quote? As far as I understand, "form follows function" was not intended to be a permanent rule-of-thumb for the remainder of the century.
Don't feel you have to reply individually to each of my sentences here. Like barireid I also prefer a more fluid form of argument  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
csintexas
millennium club
Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 2227
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 14, 2006 7:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
do you not think that you could have a beautiful building that doesn't quite meet its function?
Yes, I think you can have a beautiful building that is not perfectly functional.
"Architecture can be functional without being beautiful but it can not be beautiful without being functional. (that would make it art and not architecture)"
What I meant here is 100% functional or 100% art. Because if a building is totally non functional it ceases to be architecture. (although seeing the definition, I see it could be argued that non functional buildings could be considered architecture as well)
i still don't see how beauty can equate to form?
It may be a difference in our definition of form. To me, anything we build will have a form but when I hear the phrase form follows function. It is the same thing as saying -make it work first make it look good second.
My take on it may not be right, but to me if I where to interpret the phrase as -the shape of the building is determined by its function. That would not be worth saying because it is an obvious truth.
form is a quantifiable element, i.e. everybody can see somethings form but they may not be able to see its beauty. beauty is in the eye of the beholder etc..........
What can you say about a buildings form? That it matches the buildings interiors? I think if you say it has pleasing mass or symmetry you are back to a judgement about its looks.
What about the dog house example? Even though it was designed with only function in mind someone could still consider it beautiful.
Still I would suggest that form is a part of function to varying degrees. If we are designing a store we want a facade that people find attractive and inviting. An example of a building which in my view was designed to be art first and functional second is that Simmons Hall dormitory at MIT.
_________________
-Chris Stewart
http://bcshdb.blogspot.com >
The B/CS Home Design Blog |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
csintexas
millennium club
Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 2227
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 14, 2006 7:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ok I will try it. The reason I started responding to individual quotes was to cut down on the number of times people would take what I am saying to one person and think I was saying it to them when in fact we may be discussing a different issue. Also I like to make sure I respond to every point being made because often when I make some point or ask some question it is ignored.
Ok I see what you mean. Seems like I read somewhere that was not even the original quote. It is interesting that it was used that way originaly. That seems like it would match what barireid might be saying.
_________________
-Chris Stewart
http://bcshdb.blogspot.com >
The B/CS Home Design Blog |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BJR
Joined: 31 Jan 2006
Posts: 248
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 15, 2006 2:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
message removed
Last edited by BJR on Mon Sep 11, 2006 1:46 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
csintexas
millennium club
Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 2227
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 15, 2006 7:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
"Architecture can be functional without being beautiful but it can not be beautiful without being functional. (that would make it art and not architecture)"
Here I was just trying to demonstrate that function is more important that beauty in architecture.
Why isn't my dog house 100% functional?
Yes I know you can talk about its shape (that it has symmetry or is rectilinear). We can say it has walls, a floor, a ceiling, some windows.
What good does that do other than describe all the parts of a building?
"
I think architecture should always be more than merely function, as fortub pointed out what then does an architect do? I always think of architecture as a series of layers, function obviously is the most important, but then the intellectual ideas are layered on top of that, i always find that buildings that enjoy can be first met at a functional level, i.e. they work, but then as you study them, more complexity reveals itself. It is important however that architects do not design buildings for other architects, so that they can only be appreciated by a "trained eye", but it is also important that buildings are more than merely a product of their function."
-I agree with all of this and it is pretty much what my original point was.
-my original statement was that function is more important than form to clarify that I will say that function is more important that art
_________________
-Chris Stewart
http://bcshdb.blogspot.com >
The B/CS Home Design Blog |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
csintexas
millennium club
Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 2227
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 15, 2006 8:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yes this was certainly a problematic statement. I can see if in Sullivans day they used pattern books to determin the shape of a building it would be something new to say form follows function, today however, I would think most people would say that it is a given.
Form follows function
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Form_follows_function
Jump to: navigation, search
Form follows function is a principle associated with Modern architecture and industrial design in the 20th Century.
In the context of design professions "form follows function" seems like solid good sense. On closer examination it becomes problematic, controversial, and open to interpretation. Linking the relationship between the 'form' of an object and its intended purpose is obviously a good idea for designers and architects, but is not by itself a design solution. Zeroing in on the precise meaning of 'form follows function' opens a discussion of design integrity that remains an important, live debate.
[edit]
In architecture
The origin of the phrase is traced back to the American sculptor Horatio Greenough, but it was American architectural giant Louis Sullivan who adopted it and made it famous. For Sullivan ‘form follows function' was distilled wisdom, an aesthetic credo, the single "rule that shall permit of no exception".
Sullivan developed the shape of the tall steel skyscraper in 1900’s 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, and Mies van der Rohe. 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 don't 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.
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.
At some point some architect skipped the functional homework and simply drew out plans for a building with Modern-looking materials and spatial rhythms. The necessary work behind Functionalism can be expensive, difficult and time-consuming; it can lead to the same set of utilitarian solutions; nobody could tell much difference. Shaking off those restrictions gave architects more freedom and latitude. But at that very moment Modernism became what it had been born to destroy – it became a traditional style. The experiment was over. We’re back to “form follows precedent”.
In architectural history, this is the subtle but critical break between Mies van der Rohe and Philip Johnson: Mies pursued Modernism as a disciplined search for order, and in the mid-1930’s Johnson adopted it, renamed it, and advocated it as a surface style. Johnson later said, “Where form comes from I don’t know, but it has nothing at all to do with the functional or sociological aspects of our architecture.”
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.
_________________
-Chris Stewart
http://bcshdb.blogspot.com >
The B/CS Home Design Blog |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
csintexas
millennium club
Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 2227
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 15, 2006 9:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
Another implication of my original and subsequent posts on this subject is that beauty (as far as architecture is concerned) is not (only) in the eye of the beholder.
We can say a design is beautiful in its functionality without necessarily liking the way it looks. On the other hand I said that I don't think a building can be beautiful without being (at least mostly) functional.
In other words show me a building that is beautiful but does not work well and I will show you an ugly building.
_________________
-Chris Stewart
http://bcshdb.blogspot.com >
The B/CS Home Design Blog |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
blogger
del.icio.us
digg
slashdot
