Form Follows Function in Architecture
Вставка
- Опубліковано 27 тра 2024
- Form follows function is one the most important ideas in Modern architecture, yet most architects don’t fully understand this core concept. It has been interpreted and misinterpreted so many times that its meaning has been distorted. Developed in architecture this concept is used in product design, UX design, engineering, and in so many other fields that understanding it is essential for any designer.
In this video we will look at the evolution of the idea of form follows function. How it has evolved through Modernism into Postmodernism and contemporary architecture and design. - Наука та технологія
I just finished my university degree in architecture and I won’t lie I fell out of love with it towards the end, your videos have genuinely ignited the flame of passion I once had, making me realise the beauty behind design, giving it real purpose in society. It feels so bogged down especially in the uk where I’m from, there’s nothing inspiring here everything is copy and paste, great job with the videos you just gained a new subscriber please keep making more!!
Ever read the fountainhead by ayn rand?
@@uhlexseeuh please elaborate it
@@uhlexseeuh ayn rand was a dipshit
I feel there is complete disconnection with University and real architectural office life. It is always going to be a disappointment.
It's getting even more disapointing when you work for couple of years. Unfortunatelly
About a year ago I started digging deeper into ancient architecture and sacred geometry. I wanted practical information yet knew there there was a spiritual connection too: I couldn’t find what I was looking for. Just the same generic information about Telstra numbers and such. To think you were out there making this content as I prayed you would, makes me feel so grateful. 🙏 Many thanks, Australia.
Something attractive thats pleasing to the eyes is one thing. But something thats attractive & has a function is another, it becomes and experiences. It gives a whole new meaning of its value and appreciation.
I am really glad I saw this video. I recently tried to explain to my students the difference between modernism and postmodernism in architecture and design. I'm not an expert in any of this but I have lived long enough to see that interesting transition between the optimism, perhaps excessive, of the Modernists versus the cynicism and capitulationism of the postmodernists. The modernist believed that society would become increasingly equal and more democratic and more socially responsible. They boldly built skyscrapers in New York City where the you could see, from the curb where you exited a yellow cab, the lobby and elevators of the building, unencumbered and unprotected and only interrupted up by transparent glass doors. The post modern skyscraper is a fortress with no windows for as many as 10 stories (Bonaventure Hotel, LA). It accepts inequality and builds fortresses for the ruling class to feel protected and comfortable while living in ersatz fantasy world that often look like theme parks ("Viva Las Vegas" anyone?). So they put Chippendale hats on skyscrapers, or worse, twelve dancing gigantic angels on a chateau roof on top of a skyscraper (580 California Street). The pomos are relativists who pimp out their trade to the corporate cynics who have given us a dystopia.
Thanks for the comments! I think the overall difference is Modernism is a reaction to industrialization, science, and mass production. This created an abstract 'universal' open space. Postmodernism is a reaction to the postindustrial age of brands, advertising, and digital information. This created space as image and manufactured desire.
This was truly well put and informative, I love your holistic approach covering the varying disciplines and their methodologies. Might have to rewatch several more times before the start of any new projects to broaden the scope of approach. Looking forward to more future content!
Fascinating. Thank you. As an architectural layman I admire forms (and their characteristic functionality) that have evolved through natural selection over geological periods of time: honed by nature and natural forces (including human activity). Many of the British Victorian-era designs (e.g. large railway stations) were based on mechanical aspects of plant biology (form and function).
I just found your channel, interesting video!
I feel that the "form follows function" doctrine definitely has merit.
BUT I also feel it is often forgotten what function can be other than the material needs: we are human beings and as such we have psychological needs - fresh air, rooms filled with daylight, "non-utilized" space that acts as a buffer, etc. etc.
It makes me especially sad when I see those needs getting more and more ignored; just the other day I read an article about how some people want to make it legal in NY to build windowless bedrooms.
The purpose of architecture of _not_ making people depressed and miserable is an important yet often neglected function!
Functional spaces that are “like trees …where no elements are connected to other elements” reminds me of integration and connectivity diagrams in college that showed a functional modern apartment building with one main exit having no pedestrian paths crossing along the street versus traditional row home entrances with many paths crossing each other along the street.
I'm glad I came across your channel. Learning more than I did in school. With everything said, my thought on these is that function is often neglected these days because it brings about complex decisions that could counter your forms when considering natural lighting, ventilation, and comfort. Modern architects try as much to cut corners and rely more on artificial means in order to achieve extraordinary forms forgetting humans rely on the natural environment.
Yes, I think many building types neglect function.
I happen to come across this video by coincidence upon initial (separate-side) interest in architecture and general design-oriented careers. I happen to take greatest interest and research in system, diagramming, function, behavior, etc in general abstract. I cannot emphasize the greater significance this video/topic reaches and the ideas different in degree you have introduced to me. I love how you don't just expand into architecture but rather its environment; or another way I could put it: instead of just form, emphasis on function(s) or rather of greater significance, role. I cannot applaud enough how great this video is!!!
Thanks so much!
I'm not an architect, nor a designer, nor an artist. However, as someone with an enduring interest in architecture, systems thinking, & urban/regional development, I finished this video with the distinct impression that this is one of the most important and thought-provoking videos I've ever watched. I also happen to be a fan of the later works of Christopher Alexander (A Pattern Language, etc), so there's that too! Thanks for this thoughtful work.
Thanks so much! Yes, these concepts also apply to city design and I hope to do videos on urban planning in the future.
I am not even an architecture, I am a software engineer and I already knew that computer science have borrowed a lot of concepts from other branches, most importantly from architecture, like design patterns, etc. But today I have learned a lot that I think, will improve my knowledge on my area of expertise, as computer scientists has also gone into similar debate like form vs function, but with different terminology, object-oriented vs functional programming.
Thank you very much for this valuable information. Although I am an architecture student and do not have enough time, I finished the video until the end. I am following you from Iraq.
Thank you sir, your knowledge enlighten us to become better and understand architecture. There is so much in this world we do not know, yet we strive to understand and will always try to uncover and reinvent.
Brilliant video. It doesn't matter if one agrees with the content or not. It is brilliant. I would love to see your views in your designs, how you conceptualize architecture. I perceive architecture as a way to frame society. If enough buildings have large balconies that protrude at least ten feet from the building with lookouts into the street below and the city beyond, that street becomes a main street, and the city itself becomes a beautiful place simply because it has been deemed worthy of attention. Architecture sets the stage in which human life takes place. How that is translated into design is not to think of buildings only as exercises in abstract design, but for abstract design to follow the purpose for which the building is intended, or in other words, form follows fuction. I see architecture as a good way to frame human life to make people happy. I've never concerned myself with style beyond universal aesthetic concepts of forms that flow so well that they emanate serenity and peace. Architecture has always been about branding. Name one example where it has not done so. Cathedrals, temples, parks, old and modern buildings have always branded something, either power, greed, an excessively large ego, leisure, capitalism, consumption, and a belief in a higher power. All along the way, artistry has hitched a ride to justify those founding principles of architecture. The problem today with architecture is that it has become too sterile, too much about winning design contests and not make the world a better place. The function of framing human life cannot be done properly if human life already lies in a frame, if people are not authentic enough to truly be spontaneous. That is why I love the architecture presented in episodes of Star Trek (The Next Generation) and Star Trek (Yoyager), particularly the Vulcan cafe depicted in Yoyager's episode "In The Flesh." That simple architecture that reminds you of how beautiful the outside world is through a simply angled window with indoor plants creates an enclosure or sense of space that life is good. It does not force upon you the thought that the building is the design of an architect. Instead, the architect has extended him or herself into his or her work so much that you only experience the intention of their work, the soul of their passion. For form to truly follow function however, human life must be organic and spontaneous and free. An example of how it is not is just hearing architects talk about the function of their buildings. The concern is usually how people from a particular demographic and particular routines and particular patterns of behaviour are to behave. However, this does not mean that all present day architects are never designing buildings where spontaneous activities can emerge. Bjarke Ingels has done both. His spaces are very flexible for a variety of human activities, including nature. Not all his projects succeed in what I would call true architecture because many of his buildings are just to show off, but not all. It's not the branding that's the problem, but the fact that architecture today is branding itself. It is losing relationship with the world and becoming an exercise in conceptualization, not in a true framing of human life. Architecture is most beautiful when it beautifies the world around us, not in itself, but in how it transports us to all other arts and activities seamlessly without effort. If a building is excessively noticeable, it kicks the universe outside of its space and becomes its own universe. Until now, buildings did not do this too much. Even cathedrals connect you with the divine in some form, even if to youthe divine is only a concept. Buildings today sometimes connect you with nothing at all. To best illustrate my meaning, I provide the example of the Toyota Prius (before 2023 new generation). Most people think the prius is ugly because its wheels lack proportion to its body, or because it is not agressive. The prius is actually a tremendously beautiful car because its design is totally connected with the environment. When you see a prius pass by, pay very close attention without thinking too much. Just look at the car. What does it make you feel? If you are sensitive enough, you will see a glimpse into the future, a truly mature car whose concern isn't trying to impress anyone and whose design only exists to connect one with the environment. Most cars, if not all, are designed to make you feel like a driver, like it's all about you. A prius rips your useless ego out of you and makes it all about the external world. This allows your healthy ego, or nothing at all except you to experience the world as you've never experienced it in other cars. You can even forget you're driving a car because the experience is so calming yet alive. Most people aren't sensitive enough to have a clue of what I'm talking about. How can they? They've been driving cars their whole lives as machines that simply utilize roads to get from A to B. A prius is intended to be driven as something that is flowing with the outside world, not a sporty car where you can transform yourself into a driving machine that only uses the road to satisfy its own internal desires. A sports car disconnects you from the outside world because it turns it into a background to look at while driving, a scenario where deep down the car and you are the protagonist. The prius is the opposite. It turns the environment into a protagonist and you into its graceful observer, which deep down also turns you into the protagonist of as a being that is connected to everything around you. This is the function architecture should have and often fails in today's world. A building should be noticed because it reminds you of nature, or of some relation to the world, the environment it is in. If a building only makes you think of itself, it has failed. This does not mean design isn't important, but that design is sacred.
Wow! Thanks for the kind words. I would agree that architecture expresses a relationship between a person, nature, the built environment and society as a whole. This relationship frames our experience of the world, so it is super important to get it right.
@@robertsarchitecture I also agree!
Well put into words! You just explained what the real side of architecture should be and what shouldn't be...
Thanks I am proudly sharing this with my friend from visual art world. I wish these should have been available during my visual art teachings
Construction, no matter what will be always done to create a needed space. For resting, cooking, shelter, working, etc. You will be subject to the space you have and the money or materials that you can count on. One of the goals of the architect, is to make those spaces confortable physically in use and for the eye. The rest, I would say is a matter of personality. Both, from the architect and from the people who will use the space. A good architect will understand the need of his client, his taste and will be able to apply its knowledge to create the building that will fit his customer's needs.
This video deserves more than 34k view. Good writing, pacing, everything, Robert. Keep it up.
Thanks, will do!
I´m studying architecture, and I´m going, to be honest, maybe it wasn´t for me, but I´ve concluded that architecture is the science of human-environment development. It is not only the artistic part or the logical part; they both come together to create human spaces. That said, I do believe that form follows function. But everybody sees architecture differently.
Check out my latest video 'What is Architecture?'. Fits in with your comment. ua-cam.com/video/tfN5sgQjSiI/v-deo.html
Thank you for this video. Its great to see this form and function. I am studying building and construction.
Design is a basic human need, encompassing functionality, practicality, and aesthetics. A design solely focused on aesthetics tends to lack longevity as users may find certain elements awkward to use. On the other hand, a design purely based on functionality, neglecting aesthetics, can lead to user dissatisfaction and lower sales.
Achieving the right balance between these two design aspects is crucial for a successful final product, although some degree of tension is inevitable. Throughout history, functional considerations often took precedence during the design process, with aesthetics coming later to enhance the appearance.
Users attribute different values to functionality and aesthetics, and the market adapts accordingly. Simplicity and the "less is more" principle have been key factors in design for thousands of years. Principles like association/grouping and flow diagrams are vital in achieving practicality while contributing to the overall beauty of the design by creating order and coherence.
Amazing video, thank you sir
Thoughtful analysis. Thank you.
In an ideal form all things present are used. What causes us to feel naturally compelled to perceive beauty is that we have learned in the past the appearance of function. The need for community and private space must be considered part of the functions to be balanced within the design of a building.
Excellent insightful
need more video like this..😍
Really great video
One of the best videos I ve ever seen, really made me think alot, saludos desde la facultad de arquitectura de la universidad nacional de Colombia
Thanks so much! You made my day.
well illustrated
thank you
Would love to get some book recommendations from you. I want to grow, but don't know what books to choose
Sounds like a great idea for a video! I'll try to make one soon.
@@robertsarchitecture Great! Looking forward to it!
Thanks Jamie. That was great.
Great job, history of architectural theories 2 nd yr architecture just in 15 min
Thanks so much!
This is GOLD! THANK YOU
Really liked this!
Thank you very much, this video-essay and channel in general are very helpful and interesting! Even though I'm from visual world, but not architect
I believe form should follow basic human needs(which is oddly excluded from those existing principles) and only then make function possible. I mean true human needs which are beauty and mental stability, they are strongly impacted by environment.
Also I believe all crazy experiments and capitalism influenced ideas with artificially constructed values and desires will gone and people will not have to escape cities in free time asap to stay sane and healthy. I admit all the mathematical and engineering beauty of modern and post-modern projects, but they're better to stay on paper, because this is not for human to exist surrounded by these.
Depends on the end use mostly. I think its mostly form follows function but it doesn't have to 100% of the time. I think they are intertwined like Frank Lloyd Wright said. I believe the best buildings/structures are the ones that take each into account. People want to work and live in beautiful spaces. A simple example is a garden in a house. They are both beautiful and practical. You could push it more towards the ornamental end in which cases its mostly geared towards beauty but they can be used to grow food, reduce stress, cultivate a skill, clean the air. Some of my favorite older buildings are Wrights waterfall house and most of John Lautner's work
Our human condition requires us to find meaning and purpose in what we do. Unfortunately there has been a fair amount of manipulation thru the media, in the bluring of the important, the necessary and the essential. Without clear sign posts for guidance, Architecture too, has become muddled in a state of confusing messages...'form follows function' remains one of those truths that has stood the test of Time and society's fickle need for change...for change sake. As we are faced with decreasing natural resources and the challenge of climate change...we will...revert back to a logical approach to creating great environments that respect the human spirit and the real need to survive, in our ever evolving social structures.
A kinder city should emerge...hopefully.
(Retired Architect)
Wonderful. Thank you. In architecture schools this wholistic study is never! presented and God knows why not! We architects leave our educational institutions blind and ignorant of the history and without that there is no substantial future hence why we've become slaves to client programs and consumption. I always knew that I didn't want AutoCAD or Revit now but it's forced down our throats and these programs have altered our work forever in the wrong direction.
Absolutely! Great comment!
Come to the fay Jones school of architecture. The history and theory courses are super in depth and did a great job of explaining the history. Also I use revit for my job because I have to but the school has had me use revit on one occasion. It’s a great time.
I wanted to be an architect, but I felt the education was disconnected from the building process and actual design. So I became an engineer. But still as a sub I feel divorced from the building, I provide a code compliant solution. The A/E world is so divorced from the building development, construction and needs after construction. I tell people I am a professional etch a sketcher. We need to merge all these philosophies into a multifaceted approach. For example Wright was in many ways a post-modernist, he created a brand of what a Wright building is. His symbols and buildings were logos icons and advertisement for Wright's philosophy/architecture. How does having a brand affect the architectural practice? What if architecture designed around a company/client philosophy? We all know the Nike logo, what about a modern architecture that defines classical victory in the same modern way? what if a Nike style building could become part of the brand narrative AND be function for business operation and integration. A Nike building would be instantly identifiable, and operate with the needs of that business model. Art + problem solving & client image. The same should be true about how drawings and design are used for deliverables, how the A/E teams solves construction and site problems varying we integrate/operate with the trades, and how we deliver to the client. form and function must evolve beyond construction for the whole lifecycle of the building, maintenance, new owners, change in occupancy and technology, even demolition.
ps great channel
Thanks!
great video!
So. Traditional design: architecture is a utilitarian object and then a symbol that expresses ideas. Modern: architecture is a utilitarian object. Postmodern: architecture is a symbol that expresses ideas and then a utilitarian object.
AM IN LOVE WITH YOUR VIDEOS 🌹
This video will help me to think how to design. ❤
Great!
wooww me encanto, realmente interesante el video.
yo creo que la funcion es lo mas importante, y mas me refiero a la arquitectura sensorial, es muy confusa ya que la forma es sensorial, y la funcion da una como resultado sensaciones espaciales.
It seems to me that architecture no matter what else is a material containment of space and scale. Most of the best architecture is essentially a material impossibility. And yet the measurement is the human being and we have learned to accept the spaces we are given. As an artist-musician, I have come to realize that any material spatial expression creates not only the spatial pattern but also the visual and aural resonance of that space.. It is perceived through the human senses and it is because of that assertion, I make these statements.
Yes, architecture is about the design of space and form. But what organizes that design? That is the question.
@@robertsarchitecture That is the issue. Could I suggest that the organization of the design comes from the unique sensory experiences we each have. At about 30 months of age, we made marks, mud pies, sang, danced, and built structures. As artists we have too many ideas. My conjecture is a deep visceral trigger pushes us to focus on one idea over others. In the contemplative moment that follows, we sense how it fits with our sensory knowledge and understanding. It becomes an additive metaphor. This is the best I can do at the moment.
@@carpenterhillstudios8327 I call this the "lived experience" of architecture. Check out my other video where I discuss it briefly: ua-cam.com/video/tfN5sgQjSiI/v-deo.html
Good thank you alot
Well said .
Basically what is the need to build skyscrapers? To accommodate as many dwellers as possible from different walks of life according to the needs of the 'modern world' for various purposes! Now if the skyscraper is fulfilling what the people(only those that are being accommodated) actually need from it then that's all that matters! The world is ever evolving because humans made it possible and the rest of the people that need to evolve learn to adapt accordingly!
Definitely a farmer will have an otherwise look at skyscrapers but I believe his children or, his grandchildren will have a prospective look at it!
Well, what I'm trying to mean here is 'what is function to compact & creative forms?'
Yes. Why build skyscrapers? Here is an article I wrote about this topic: medium.com/@jaime-roberts/in-an-age-of-climate-change-should-we-build-skyscrapers-c129cb5a0716
Yeah, but whenever they're required/needed/wanted they'll be built across the globe!
ok this is intense. I started watching because I love architecture then as the video progressed, maybe not so much...
I think all of these types/eras of architecture are important and at least till now (6th sem in architecture school), I want to merge the parts I like of all of them.
Traditional architecture has a lot to teach us. I find it fascinating how people designed buildings back in the day: the materials and the design making even the harshest conditions livable without the use of any mechanical systems. We should try to revive those kinds of architecture. The beautiful, beautiful ornamentation making the architecture just breathtaking. Though, I don't think most people in the present day and age would be able to afford such ornamentation in buildings. Unless we mass produce them which I feel degrades the value of those crafts. Nonetheless, those art forms should be preserved.
Modern architecture is perhaps my least favorite period of architecture, both in design and philosophy but I don't completely hate it either. I hate that modernism created this sterilized architecture that removed social spaces. I hate that everything was supposed to be purely functional and nothing else. I hate that modernist architects (at least, ones I know of) advocated to remove any and everything that had anything to do with past ages of architecture. I don't think that goes with how humans operate. But I don't hate that modern architecture happened. It allowed us to learn from its mistakes and more importantly, move forward in architecture. 'Form follows function', as well as 'form and function go hand in hand' are both good ideas in my opinion, just that their execution was poor because modern architecture/architects aimed for sterilized architecture instead of architecture where humans can thrive. Plus, I think the sterile modern architecture is good when you want something other than the architecture to be the focus.
Post-modern architecture is interesting, in my opinion. I love to see different architects and their thought processes. I think with this era of architecture, we are searching for a common ground between functionality, beauty, social integration, the world, the environment, and history. Of course, I don't think we are there yet; we haven't achieved this perfect architecture that perfectly balances all of these ideas and I don't think we ever will. But with a lot of architects I follow, I see them trying to build more sustainably. I see them realizing the importance of social spaces and working to create them. Again, none of it is perfect but I love to see people trying; I love the innovation that is happening in the architecture world right now. I also don't see the problem with the idea of creating a shell whose function is determined by others. Especially if the function is carved out by the society.
This is a better explanation but the video on architectural ornamentation just made me want to watch someone explain it step by step. This is information, but what can I do with it...
I'm writing a video showing Sullivan's design process for architectural ornament. I'll make this video in a few months. Sullivan's design process was adopted by Frank Lloyd Wright and the Prairie School architects.
My view of Alexander’s Pattern Language is not post modernist or function following form, but rather it is a philosophy of form expressing the spirit and essence of humanity.
Part of Postmodern architecture's rejection of Modernism was a return to historicism. Traditional architecture was very focused on humanism, especially in the Renaissance. Alexander's 'Timeless Way of Building' is trying to return to the historicism of past ways of working.
@@robertsarchitecture But Alexander's pattern language is a collection of specific solutions being proposed for functional problems. Each pattern in the book is a problem statement - usually something very practical, like the percentage of space in an urban environment that should be dedicated to parking if you want to keep it pedestrian friendly, or the population density of a neighborhood necessary to sustain a children's playground or something - followed by an argument for advocating a particular design solution. His traditionalism isn't a focus on historical modals for it's own sake, but a belief that there are universal functional problems being addressing by architecture, many solutions for which have already been discovered and used in traditional building. It's quite the opposite of postmodernism, which doesn't believe it's architecture's business to address functional problems at all.
@@jessegillis In many ways Postmodernism is not a complete rejection of Modern problem solving, but a continuation of many of its processes. Instead of using a Modern scientific functionalist model for problem solving, Alexander uses socially constructed models from historical context. This replaces a scientific model with a social model. This is why Alexander uses the word 'language' to describe this technique because it was derived over time like a language. Today, most architects use the term 'case studies' to denote historical models instead of Alexander's 'Pattern Language', but they are both the same process. Using maps or models to problem solve is purely a Modern/Postmodern technique. The difference between Modern and Postmodern is that Modernism tried to use purely objective scientific models, while Postmodernism uses socially constructed ones.
@@robertsarchitecture Well hold on, now. “Social models” and “socially constructed models” are not the same thing, and you seem to be conflating them. Social sciences can provide plenty of useful and perfectly scientific data for solving architectural problems, and, as I see it, that’s just what Alexander is up to. As an example, there is a pattern where he argues for a four story limit in building projects. He makes this argument based on scientific research related to the mental health impact on residents living in very tall buildings. In other words, he is claiming that it is an objective fact - a physical fact of human biology - that we should not build very tall residential buildings because they do not function well as homes for people. The form follows - or in this case is constrained by - function. Now, the research he cites might be flimsy and it might not lead to the conclusion he draws about a four story limit. But either way, it’s not a social construct he’s talking about. It would be a social construct if he were arguing for a four story limit because “society has agreed that’s the best height” or “that’s how they did it in the renaissance”. If something is a “social construct” that means it’s not an objective fact, but rather a convention that people have come together and agreed upon - like the meaning of a symbol. But Alexander doesn’t call it a pattern “language” because it’s about creating and manipulating symbols. It’s a language because it had some of the characteristic features of language: It has a “vocabulary” - the names of the 250ish patterns; a “syntax” - each pattern fits in with certain other patterns at different scales; and a “grammar” - fitted together the patterns are meant to address specific design problems. And like normal language, it’s supposed to be a system from which you can produce infinite variety with finite elements.
@@jessegillis 'A Pattern Language' came out in 1977. In the 1980s there was a big push to use social sciences to 'prove' architectural theory, especially at the UC Berkeley where Alexander taught. My teacher, Grant Hildebrand, wrote the book 'Origins of Architectural Pleasure' were he posits that people feel pleasure from architecture because they evolved to do so. This uses the 'objective' science of evolution to prove why people behave a certain way. You can't prove social behavior based on objective science, nor can you prove people subjectively like something because of some biological reason. People's behavior in their environment is far too complex, and much of human behavior is based on social structures, not objective science. I struggled with this when I was a grad student, eventually to come up with my own theory. If you would like to learn more about my theory you can read it here: medium.com/@jaime-roberts/jordan-peterson-what-is-reality-de9ae69d9d9c Jordan Peterson is in many ways like Alexander and Hildebrand where he tries to prove human behavior is based on the evolution of the lobster. Interestingly, Alexander toward the end of his life posited that architecture should be 'beautiful'. His theory evolved from objective, to social, to eventually subjective.
I like it
8:30 can someone explain this statement "in post-modernism, form follows signs"?
Postmodern theory started with linguistic theory of 'sign' and 'signifier'. This is also in postmodern art. Here is more info: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signified_and_signifier
If function is defined in terms of the needs of the user.. well, I _need_ to see beauty
What is your opinion of Mexican Arq. Luis Barragan
I like him. He brought European Modern architecture to Mexico and mixed it with a regional style, creating regional modernism.
👌
wow
You left a tough question at the last part of the video.
What’s wrong with an iconic beautiful building? To accomplish a true creation, you just need to underline it’s core functionality, make a bit of abstraction and then you got preciousness.
The opposite is true: function follows form. All functions develop around the shape of the human body and the body shaped by the environment and the laws of termodynamics. You can follow this logic all the way to the beginning of the universe and ask yourself if there was a primordial ‘function’.
This is my first year in architecture school and I find myself rejecting the teaching being taught in my university, the main reason for this is I feel like it is centered around modernism as a way to reject colonialism but I strongly believe modernism promotes consumerism which was created by colonialism and imperialism. This movement regressive and our educators are stuck in the Industrial age, a lot is at play here.
Yes. Me too. I hated Modernism in school until I discovered Postmodernism which I hated more. Modernism is a direct result of the Industrial Revolution. Postmodernism is a result of the postindustrial economy. But don't get depressed. Invent something new!
❤
yo creo que diseño con una combinacion de todos
I feel that Post-Modernism is correct that the "form follows function" is not the best design philosophy but I also think post-modernism solution is overly gluttonous and worst then modernism. Let's look at the extremes. A completely functional building is a hospital. It is very rare (at least in America) where a hospital visit or stay is pleasing in any respect. No one wants to be in a hospital. But let's look at the opposite, Las Vegas in terms of post-modernism. The existence of Las Vegas is 100% unsustainable as a community.
What I think needs to happen is a revision of the modernist principal in a way that elevates form from being just an after thought over drywall. A principle like "Function follows need and form enhances function". Yes function is first considered but then the form serves to improve that function. This is the difference between a regular chair and an ergonomic chair. They both serve the same function but the form of the former enhances the function of the chair. The problem with "form follows function" is that it makes form an afterthought to function. Buildings become steel and silica square products to serve functions instead of places people want to work and live at. Serving function without consideration of need is why Shibuya Crossing isn't permanently closed to car traffic. The pedestrian has more severe greater needs then vehicle traffic at that intersection, so why maintain dual function to detract from the greater need. And the form of that intersection changing it into a walking plaza should serve to enhance that function.
There's a great deal of thought and theory behind all of this: a great deal of philosophy. I only wonder how worthwhile it all is. We've peoples choking in hideous or soulless or cynical architecture and I wonder if perhaps that might be because we're thinking too much. Perhaps if we just decide we're not gods out to improve people and simply find out what gives them joy. And then deliver that. And see what develops from it. Perhaps it's our self importance that's making people choke.
form follow funtionality
This is deceptive because it says a lot of things that are researched, but then says a generalization that reveals a total lack of comprehension of the material. The idea that meeting places or social spaces were not considered under “form follows function” is a conflation between utilitarian values, industrial capitalism, and modernism. Modernism simply posited that concepts have no inherent symbolic form. Postmodernism counter-posited that while abstract ideas do not have forms, no idea is truly abstract because to be an idea is to be bound to people, which do not live in abstract. Because of this, symbolic forms are concepts in and of themselves, and therefore have meaning.
It’s simple really, modernism doesn’t say no gabled roofs, it says do not put gabled roofs in places that need to prioritize cooling over precipitation. Post-modernism says if *your* idea of a house has gabled roofs, then to build your idea of a house, you use a gabled roof, even if it’s not the most efficient form, because if it was any other form, it would no longer be your idea of a house.
Frank Llyod Wright?
for tens of thousands of years humanity built beautiful buildings. and then modernists invented "architects" and everything went to crap.
The concept of false needs implies anything with a large enough advertising budget should be successful. Patently untrue. It’s the other way around. Successful products have ubiquitous advertising
If you give architect a chance to design living bacteria, all things fail
So people should be subjects of their tools? That sounds more like people should be puppets or worse.
Its like some heroines act great but can't merge completely with the character they are playing.
stamina apparent
Bauhaus was the opposite of Sullivan and Wright- dry, sterile, square, rigid "German". It has destroyed all beauty and beautiful proportions in architecture.
There are no pauses, no time for breathing or absorbing what is being told, just sentences follow sentences follow sentences ra-ta-ta-ta-ta like a machine gun. So, if there are different points of view, one is not able to differentiate them. Just a rumble-jumble. 15 minutes of uninterrupted talk. If there is something to be understood, I didn't get it. Do I have to play and pause it interminably every five seconds to really be able to listen it? Why!
Seems like it isn’t for you. Move along.
Are you okay? Slow it down if it’s too fast for you.
Le Corbusier. I recommend a french class. No ofence.
form has always followed function. The term was invented in the early 20th century as a marketing term to justify the rejection of the embrace of decoration in all the neo historical design movements of the 19th century. To assume that, in itself, it embodies some sort of universal truth of modernism per se is laughable.
Yes and no. Yes, "Form Follows Function" comes from German Functionalism and the Bauhaus. No, pre-Modern architecture did not separate form from function. As F.L. Wright says "Form and function are one." It was only Modern architecture that separated the two.
Louis Sullivan NOT Lois Sullivan
No it doesnt. Function is the easy part. Talented designers go for beauty and originality. The lesser architects rely on function and other technical obstacles...
What about both
A simple explanation what what is Form Follows Function, turns out to be click bait..........
This talks a lot about form follows function and asks us which we prefer ..I don even know what I'm doing
no. and i cant believe people still fall for this nonsense
All wrong, so generalized
The example of the Greecian facade on the bank not following function is in error! One of the primary functions of a bank is to convey confidence that the bank is a very secure place to keep your money and that it will be there for a very long time. It doesn't have to look like the Parthenon, but this is where modern architects betray their profession by not being sensitive to the "owner's"real needs vice building the cheap looking structures where the principle motivation is creating the architect's identity. While the Gothic cathedral certainly doesn't fit today's religion practice in form where people try to recreate god in their own image and have the living praise singers and dancers to entertain them, undoubtedly Gothic form greatly followed function when they were built in providing the inspiration that this was truly the place where the real Almighty God lives. Yes I watched to the end and must agree with you many structures of today fail the form follows function principle as well as fail to provide anything artistic ... or even aesthetic! Deconstructionism is an example of modern architecture pedaling "invisible clothes." However, it should be recognized in the pursuit for architectural perfection that the economic and financial workings of today generally place a premium on cost when settling in on form.
One might argue that the Greek facade has meaning which might add value toward the organization’s mission WHILE still recognizing Sullivan’s critique that the form is borrowing from historical patterns which actually don’t exist today and that we might invent new forms which derive directly from actual function in the current context. That’s what I’m getting from this. Both arguments have merit.
As an example, when I work as a designer in either application UI or print, sometimes it’s best to use conventional patterns that draw on history to “make sense” that actually doesn’t literally follow anymore (ex: using an image of a floppy disk to represent the action of “save”), but sometimes it’s better if I take the risk of inventing new language or patterns which match a changed contemporary reality (such as indicating a continuous saving process with a spinning/stop icon).
I think the point may have been missed. I don't believe the intent was to state a bank can't look like a Greek structure to show strength, stability and elegance along with permanence. Rather, the thought was the concept of form follows function has evolved from its original intent. So, you both are kind of right...if that makes sense.😇 Note that he later stated the building form evolves from the program... Thanks.//Chuck