|
View previous topic :: View next topic
|
| Author |
Message |
SDR
millennium club
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Posts: 1846
Location: San Francisco
|
 Posted: Tue Sep 25, 2007 4:17 pm Post subject: |
    |
|
That would be the point -- an aesthetic move that had no functional reason.
The idea of form and fuction being one is given as the ideal: that it would be perfect if every form had a function. This is seen or assumed, by those promoting the idea of FFF, to be superior to a condition where there are gratuitous aesthetic moves -- "mere decoration," for instance. So it serves as an explanation (if one were needed) for an undecorated architecture, and moreover for unexpected forms, for asymmetry, for unusual materials, etc etc. This is not necessarily the same thing as minimalism, though there are obvious connections.
SDR |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
usarender
millennium club
Joined: 01 May 2004
Posts: 1258
Location: San Diego, Ca
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 25, 2007 4:37 pm Post subject: Modernist Minimalists |
|
|
| The modernists, in attempting to discard the heresy of decor, adopted the axiom of FFF and as a direct result, we find buildings whose clothing have been brought down to a modernist minimalist. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mx2
millennium club
Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 1977
Location: Miami, Florida
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 25, 2007 4:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
We all tend to forget the context of these coined phrases to the point we end up disseminating the ideas down to the letter...before the likes of all Modernists, including Sullivan, most of Architecture was still playing with "Structure-Space", where the structure defined the spaces they enclosed. Structure was a function on many levels, and often architects dressed them up to try and make them more interesting (Gaudi). But once reinforced concrete came along, designers found it more difficult to lend credence to their designs. Gone were the classical orders and proportions, rhythmn and sanity...the sky was indeed the limit!
But the early pioneers of Modernism found a language, a pattern, to designing in this newfound void...and restored order, proportion, scale, etc. They rationalized it; ie, form "must" follow function...why? Because the truth is, the possibility of designing something that has no function became a reality, and a high probability. It's ironic how Post-Modernism somehow twisted the whole thing so that now, people complain about functionless appendages designed into our contemporary buildings...something the Modernists tried in vain to "prove" to be incorrect. Form does not have to follow function,...there is no FFF police and it is not only possible, but common to design elements that have no meaning nor purpose, however, economics has mostly done the opposite: we are SO obssessed with Function, that we design just above the threshold of acceptable, in general of course. Why? Because that's what most clients want to pay for. So when designing the bare bones, nothing much can be spared beyond being functional. Even stucco reveals often get looked at twice... 
Form follows function because it's economical and efficient. Look at any period in history of economic prosperity and we find overly ornate, large and/or complex Architecture built, with the notion that form is the dominating factor and function is treated as secondary.
mx2.5
_________________
*Art of Architecture: The conscious use of skill and creative imagination in the production of an aesthetic building.
*Science of Architecture: The calculated use of technical skill and knowledge in the construction of a functional building. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SDR
millennium club
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Posts: 1846
Location: San Francisco
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 25, 2007 4:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well put. That's why I find it ironic that Sullivan should be the one to express this ideal in writing, while producing highly decorated buildings.
SDR |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
usarender
millennium club
Joined: 01 May 2004
Posts: 1258
Location: San Diego, Ca
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 25, 2007 4:51 pm Post subject: Organic Architecture of Wright |
|
|
The relationship between Sullivan's Function and Form relationship and Wrights view of "Organic Architecture" -->>
http://architecture.about.com/od/periodsstyles/g/organic.htm
"Definition:
Organic Architecture is a term Frank Lloyd Wright used to describe his approach to architectural design. The philosophy grew from the ideas of Frank Lloyd Wright's mentor, Louis Sullivan, who believed that "form follows function." Wright argued that "form and function are one."
Organic architecture strives to integrate space into a unified whole. Frank Lloyd Wright was not concerned with architectural style, because he believed that every building should grow naturally from its environment. "
and further --->>
"So here I stand before you preaching organic architecture: declaring organic architecture to be the modern ideal and the teaching so much needed if we are to see the whole of life, and to now serve the whole of life, holding no 'traditions' essential to the great TRADITION. Nor cherishing any preconceived form fixing upon us either past, present or future, but—instead—exalting the simple laws of common sense—or of super-sense if you prefer—determining form by way of the nature of materials..."
It can be clearly seen in this presentation by Mr. Wright, that he believed form should grow from the site, and the materials and only this mentality would allow the form and the function to become one. The modernists, as a counterpoint, including Sullivan, according to Wrights philosophy all got it wrong then by trying to establish a direct connection between form and function, to the point that the axiom that form and function were two separate entities that needed to be analyzed separately. In Wrights view, they should be one and the same, if the architecture is designed by allowing nature and the environment, and the materials to determine the form and resolve the function into a unit with beautiful harmony and integrity of design.
Last edited by usarender on Wed Sep 26, 2007 5:31 pm; edited 4 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mx2
millennium club
Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 1977
Location: Miami, Florida
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 25, 2007 4:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well that just it SDR...somehow people confuse "less is more" concept with "form follows function"...they are not intertwined nor did the Modern movement have such a clear cut delineation of ideas. Many Modern buildings, esp. early experimentations, were a play on spatial quality but the elements were adorned to the max...I would dare say this is even what Prairie Style was about. We can adorn a very functional space, and we can design a functionless space that is minimalistic...
mx2.5
_________________
*Art of Architecture: The conscious use of skill and creative imagination in the production of an aesthetic building.
*Science of Architecture: The calculated use of technical skill and knowledge in the construction of a functional building. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mx2
millennium club
Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 1977
Location: Miami, Florida
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 25, 2007 4:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This was a very interesting find, related to the subject....enjoy and talk later (going to dinner now):
| Quote: | | http://www.theatre.ubc.ca/dress_decor/modern_architecture_early_modernism.htm |
mx2.5
_________________
*Art of Architecture: The conscious use of skill and creative imagination in the production of an aesthetic building.
*Science of Architecture: The calculated use of technical skill and knowledge in the construction of a functional building. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
usarender
millennium club
Joined: 01 May 2004
Posts: 1258
Location: San Diego, Ca
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 25, 2007 5:18 pm Post subject: The Essay that became the foundation of Modernism! |
|
|
| mx2 wrote: | Well that just it SDR...somehow people confuse "less is more" concept with "form follows function"...they are not intertwined nor did the Modern movement have such a clear cut delineation of ideas. Many Modern buildings, esp. early experimentations, were a play on spatial quality but the elements were adorned to the max...I would dare say this is even what Prairie Style was about. We can adorn a very functional space, and we can design a functionless space that is minimalistic...
mx2.5 |
Mis-Statement of facts.
Proof -->>>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Form_follows_function
Is ornament functional?
"In 1908 the Austrian architect Adolf Loos famously proclaimed that architectural ornament was criminal, 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."
So how can one say there is no connection between form follows function and the later resulting minimalist movement ? How does Sullivan fit into all this ? A gross contradiction of terms.
Where now are all the supposed die hard "intellectuals" of this forum, that be-speak of the bable bable of the babler? They are left in a heap of ruins of their own simplistic reductionist minimalism. All the bird catchers and FLW beholders who know nothing of his way of thinking. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SDR
millennium club
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Posts: 1846
Location: San Francisco
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 25, 2007 5:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
From elsewhere on the same page:
"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)."
You can go around and around about this. My own point is that Wright and many other archtects are forced by the circumstances to invent things to say about their work -- about architecture in general -- that are extraneous to the work. The circumstance: that the work is VISUAL, with its own internal rules and kinds of order, most of which are painfully obvious, or on the other hand difficult or impossible to describe, or at least to say anything meaningful about.
So, in this absence, a man like Wright is forced to invent something like Organic Architecture to talk about, while in fact he was just doing his best to make something that was beautiful and essential, to him, and that would also satisfy the needs of the client. It suited him to say that he was above or beyond Style, that his work obeyed a higher set of rules, while of course he was a stylist of the highest order.
It may be said that, rather than hypocrisy, this tendency is forced upon architects and other visual artists by the fact that there is really nothing to say - in words -- about Order, Repetition, Variety, Continuity --about Beauty, in other words.
I don't know if others have explored this avenue -- I will have to look into it. In the meantime, I would take the writings of architects with a grain of salt. After all, they have to do something while waiting for that next building to finally get "out of the ground, into the light"!
SDR |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
usarender
millennium club
Joined: 01 May 2004
Posts: 1258
Location: San Diego, Ca
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 25, 2007 6:22 pm Post subject: Brutalism versus Architectural Theory |
|
|
Well any good Wright fan would argue this to the death. He would argue FLW truly developed organic architecture that was in perfect harmony with nature, with it's materials and with it's application at the time, and this his logic was not just a disguise for doing what he wanted to satisfy the needs of the client at hand. To despise architectural theories of great men like this is at best to diminish the cause of the development of architectural theory. At worst, it becomes a brutal reflection of the development of architectural theory.
This may not be related to brutalism in architecture, but nonetheless, here goes a link -->>
http://www.open2.net/modernity/4_15.htm
Reynar Banham dubbed the school 'the New Brutalism', a movement which aimed, in his words, to "make the whole conception of the building plain and comprehensible. No mystery, no romanticism, no obscurities about function and circulation.
and further -->>
"With many Brutalist buildings, the feeling exists that the needs of expressing an architectural ideal comes before the needs of the human beings who have to use them. By the time the backlash against Modernism was in full swing in the 1970s, Brutalist buildings often bore the brunt of the criticism." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SDR
millennium club
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Posts: 1846
Location: San Francisco
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 25, 2007 6:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
To which I would say that Brutalism is another of many variations of modernism. I'm afraid I see nothing wrong with ignoring most of architectural criticism; it is if anything even more irrelevant than the writings of the architects. The last twenty-five years have seen an ocean of wasted words: architecture seen through the lens of literary criticism, etc etc. I'm sorry, but it's wasted on me, anyway.
I have been studying Wright -- the architect and the writer -- for fifty years. After all this time, it is the work that means something to me, while the writing, fascinating as it is, ultimately disappoints because it fails to reveal the one thing I want to know: where did those wonderful architectural ideas and forms come from ?
He claimed an affinity with nature, and everybody has followed that line dutifully ever since. It is the delightful contrast between building and nature that I find satisfying. Trying to pin down just what is meant by Organic is frustrating; he hinted at several different definitions, leaving the reader, like the reader of poetry, to interpret it for himself. He referred to himself as a poet-architect, after all -- by which I believe that he meant to imply that his work was at least part poetry.
Again, saying anything meaningful and relevant about a visual art (and of course architecture is more than just a visual art) is bound to skirt around the reality -- there just isn't anything to say about shadows and textures and space, really; you have to go and look at it. The many books in my library were usually purchased for me to feast my eyes, rather than to read what others, or the architect himself, had to say about the buildings' aesthetic meaning. Of course there are lots of interesting and relevant facts about the buildings that can be put into words. . .
SDR |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Architect
Joined: 09 Jun 2005
Posts: 184
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 26, 2007 12:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | usarender
Well any good Wright fan would argue this to the death. He would argue FLW truly developed organic architecture that was in perfect harmony with nature, with it's materials and with it's application at the time, and this his logic was not just a disguise for doing what he wanted to satisfy the needs of the client at hand. To despise architectural theories of great men like this is at best to diminish the cause of the development of architectural theory. At worst, it becomes a brutal reflection of the development of architectural theory. |
usarender, your bullshit is getting tiresome - you know that?
Here's a reality check for you - read F.Ll.W.'s The Natural House. In fact, go straight to a chapter entitled Organic Architecture and the Orient. Once there you will... a) begin to see who/what Wright credits Organic Architecture, ...and b) you'll begin to pull your head out of your spam!
Ok?
Oh yeah btw - I'm a grad of the Frank Lloyd Wright school of Architecture and just 'happen' to have an autographed first edition (hardcover) copy of that book in my library. Tell me more about Wright usarender.
Take care... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P.C.
millennium club
Joined: 26 May 2004
Posts: 2163
Location: Denmark
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 26, 2007 3:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
"I want to know: where did those wonderful architectural ideas and forms come from ? "
These are the most fake words I read for long -- had you been living back then and had the same chance to destroy a nice guy back then, your harms way would have fallen on him. --- you would have "protected" the generation of architects before him with the same fury poison as you do to today's tallented designers --- ain't that a fact ? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P.C.
millennium club
Joined: 26 May 2004
Posts: 2163
Location: Denmark
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 26, 2007 3:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
Remember -- I been there I tried that, and nomatter how many others written me and dared write some of the treads you infiltrated --- not to gain knowleage or find out why Per Corell was seen as one of the times most tallented and skilled designers by many -- then your fury poison beside others made sure you poisoned not the guy's work but also his future possibilities, by protecting thivery of intelectural property, by "protecting" "fine" architects thives who also didn't read the copyright rules for intelectural property -- remember I been there my family tried that, my options helping my son to a better life are decided by your arogant refuse of my credits.
These are the facts, have a nice day. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
csintexas
millennium club
Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 2174
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 26, 2007 6:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
Well I have to agree with you SDR, the main purpose of all those words is often to justify aesthetic decisions or just say anything that will distinguish someone from the crowd. I do enjoy reading FLLW though and I think think those where not just words to him.
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Form_follows_function
"Is ornament functional?"
If we are using nature as an example of form following function than we can obviously see that ornament is functional.
_________________
-Chris Stewart
http://bcshdb.blogspot.com >
The B/CS Home Design Blog |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
blogger
del.icio.us
digg
slashdot
