אדריכלות ישראלית

Architecture of Israel #

118

August

2019

Function Follows Form

page

english readers

The negation of any binding relationship

between form and function is well

anchored in Space Syntax Theory,

claiming that the only significant factor in

architecture is the way in which content is

organized - relative to the container, and

the container relative to its surroundings,

independent of its form, dimensions,

design style, color, or building materials.

Bearing this in mind, one may determine

that the issue of what comes first – the

egg or the chicken – is not necessarily

relevant, as long as the structure functions

optimally and manages to survive the

test of time without depending on the

circumstances of its creation.

Although most of the architects carrying

yesterday’s backpack tend to explain

the form of the structure as a result of

functional needs, history of architecture

proves that buildings successfully

manage to fulfill their task even when the

theoretical foundation radically changes,

and there is no evidence that this adds to

or subtracts from their ability to function

properly.

So, for instance, while Modernism

advocated the elimination of ornament,

Post-Modernism is addicted to it.

Moreover, many research studies

show that the initial form of a structure

is determined spontaneously in the

architect’s mind during the first planning

clay in the hands of the artist

the egg and the chicken

function follows form

stages or even before, while the final form

crystallizes in a gradual process based

on a give-and-take relationship with the

content, while shifting the focus according

to constraints, needs, ideology, budget

and style.

In this context, one may cautiously relate

to "architectural truths" that cling to

extreme statements like "ornament is a

crime" (Adolf Loos); "less is more" (Mies

van der Rohe); or "less is a bore" (Robert

Venturi). This actually leaves the question

of "architectural truth" open: Is the

"truth" supposed to reflect the material,

technology, the architect’s philosophy, the

user’s aspirations? What is the "right" form

of a residential building, an institution, or

a factory?

An historical overview indicates that these

questions will probably remain open

forever, particularly today, when there are

no formal limitations and the possibility

of adapting content to any container has

become simpler, like the song – "If God

wills, even a broom can shoot".

In this context, technology itself

determines the language, expressing not

only the ‘need’ but also the ornament.

And to quote Martin Heidegger – "It

was technological thinking that first

understood nature in such a way

that nature could be challenged to

unlock its forces and energy", and, in

fact, technology has always had a say in

architecture.

In their book, Space-craft, writers Lukas

Feireiss and Robert Kanten maintain that

spatial-creation discipline is no longer the

sole possession of architects. Referring to

temporary structure, they claimthat they do

not conform to the accepted architectural

concepts, since these don’t serve a

defined architectural purpose. "Although

some are considered an architectural

oasis", their very impermanence evokes

questions about their capacity for

sustainability since they are re-defined

for a new use. Consequently, buildings

that look like MFO’s actually deconstruct

conventional architectural meaning, while

expressing need through their form.

Such references in fact legitimize the

creation of "containers" originally not

intended for a defined purpose, and only

after going through a process of dialog

with the purpose, perceive their final form.

Denoted "Out of Section", a work by

Udi Kramsky, combines various design

disciplines in order to allow external

forces to intervene in the design process

of structures.

The process starts with creating clay

bowls, similar to those used by almost all

cultures to hold products, independent of

the future content.

The fact that identical functions can achieve a different form undermines the modernist

claim whereby the form of a structure is supposed to reflect its content. In reality, the

situation indicates that many architects relate to the structure as a formative container

with no binding affinity to content, apart from the relationships that exist between the

various functions, between them and the container, and between the container itself and

the space surrounding it.

This article presents several examples which, at best attempt to explain some affinity

between form and content and, at worst, the form is born under circumstances external

to the planning process, and only afterwards does it become subject to an ongoing

dialog with the functions during the planning process.