"Form Ever Follows Function; Form Ever Enhances Function"

In my experience as an architecture student and through the many design projects I have completed over the past three years, I have developed a certain design method of my own.  It serves as a sort of design formula per se for most projects I approach.  The well-known phrase embraced by many architects of the modern movement “form ever follows function” is a good starting point to begin to describe my design method, but for a more accurate description I would alter it slightly—“form ever follows function; form ever enhances function.”

            The basis for all of my designs is the function that will be supported by the building.  As this is the most basic goal that must be reached by a design, I believe it is the obvious place to begin designing.  The program of the building is analyzed, and various studies are produced to offer diverse solutions.  The actual human use of the building is taken into high consideration.  Ease of use, efficiency of space, and high functionality are all priorities in the programmatic planning stage of design.  Simultaneous to the programmatic planning of the building, the context and location of the project are also analyzed and contribute to the initial design.  As suggested by the Indian architect and planner Charles Correa regarding his low-cost residential designs, simply providing an enclosed box in which to perform a specific set of functions and placing that box into a specific environment is not a viable design solution.  The climate and the desired relationship between indoors and outdoors, the location and the desired hierarchy of privacy, and the context and the desired relationship with neighboring architecture and landscape features are all factors which influence and go hand-in-hand with the spatial planning of the building.  It is through the guidance of all of these criteria that an overall building form is reached, serving as a blank canvas for the next phase of design: aesthetics.

            Designing for aesthetic quality has long been a topic of controversy among architects.  I believe aesthetic quality is as integral to the success of a design as is a roof or a floor.  Any building could have a wonderfully planned and constructed set of spaces that support function fantastically; it is my belief, however, that to be truly successful, architecture must evoke feelings in its occupants that correspond to the nature of the space and the function that happens within it.  This is not to say that the aesthetics of a building should govern or trump its function begotten form.  No, I believe that style is suggested by function as well, and that the preliminary building form is like a clean block of clay, ready to be sculpted into something spectacular.  The programmatic housing of functions is turned into architecture through sculpting and improving the building form to achieve a desired feeling, which in turn enhances the human experience and the way in which the space is used.

The Free Plan - Le Corbusier and Mies van der Rohe

                Of the architects we have studied recently who embraced the concept of the free plan, two whose design methods are quite interesting when directly compared are Le Corbusier and Mies van der Rohe.  While the two shared some fundamental values and an affinity for the free plan, their individual definitions of free plan and other points addressed in their designs differed substantially.  The work of both Le Corbusier and Mies van der Rohe can be recognized largely by their free plan spatial organizations.  The building plan had moved from segmented spaces enclosed by intrusive, heavy structure to a now flexible structure which allowed spaces to be arranged in any way desired to best suit function and context.  Building structure was organized on a grid, and partitions became freed from any load-bearing responsibility.

Villa Stein - Le Corbusier

While flexibility was the main objective of the free plan for both Le Corbusier and Mies van der Rohe, its purpose and the manner in which that flexibility was utilized differed between the two.  Le Corbusier approached his projects with a very scientific mindset.  His five points of architecture—pilotis, free plan, free façade, ribbon windows, and roof gardens—and his modular, repeatable structural systems became the interchangeable building blocks for nearly all of his projects.  Houses designed by Le Corbusier became like products of an assembly line, each having its own variations on the design formula and its own identity, but pieced together from a definitive set of components.  Free plan allowed him to do this with ease in his projects, such as Villa Stein or Villa 

Villa Savoye - Le Corbusier

Savoye, in which the domino skeleton system essentially created a structural box into which Le Corbusier could freely insert his architectural components in any arrangement that the specific context required.

Mies van der Rohe approached his projects with the same enthusiasm for free plan as Le Corbusier; however, Mies van der Rohe took the “free” quality of the free plan to another level beyond that of Le Corbusier.  His designs were much less rigid than Le Corbusier’s, and they allowed for much more flexibility and multifunctionality.  He dissolved the building center and the conventional four-walled room as spatial organizers.  Instead of the rigid, heavy boxes of defined space acting as a container for a specific function as seen in prior architecture, including that of Le Corbusier, Mies van der Rohe opened everything that could be opened and then some.  He completely liberated the plans of his buildings, providing minimal division where absolutely necessary for issues of privacy.  Many times it was as though he started with a block of open space, conservatively carved out small pieces for service space, and what was left was a large, light, airy volume of space which promoted ease of flow and felt far less claustrophobic than the traditional

50x50 House - Mies van der Rohe

room.  The 50x50 House, for example, or the Farnsworth House, redefined the idea of a house, opening the spaces within the house to each other, and the house to its environment.  Aside from the grid used to create structure, which itself was often unconventionally arranged, Mies van

Farnsworth House - Mies van der Rohe

der Rohe’s buildings were “free” in every sense of the word in relation to free plan and liberation of spaces.

Le Corbusier and Mies van der Rohe both valued the concept of free plan in their designs, but for seemingly very different reasons.  While Le Corbusier was very scientifically minded, his approach to spatial design was much more regimented than that of Mies van der Rohe, and the freedom of his free plans largely related to his freedom in design as opposed to Mies van der Rohe’s freedom of function and use in the free plan.  Both approaches, however, allowed the architects to design buildings to the best of their ability that they believed would support the needs of occupants in a unique way.

Works Cited:

http://en.wikiarquitectura.com/index.php/Villa_Stein_-_de_Monzie

http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/fnart/Corbu.html

http://www.architakes.com/?p=5801

http://www.farnsworthhouse.org/photos.htm

Key Idea of Modern Architecture





                After studying the various movements which contributed to the emergence of modern architecture, there is one key idea that I see commonly running through each of them.  Each one began from an almost rebellious attitude toward continuing architectural styles from the past.  Supporters of the movements seemed to see it as their duty to not only create a new and better architectural style for the modern world, but also to steer society in the direction of change.

Example of ornate achitecture
from the past.

                The rebellious nature which I am referencing can first be found in the values of the Arts and Crafts movement.  Up until the time when this style began to take shape in the 1880s, architecture was valued on the level of prestige and grandeur that could be attained through the use of ornate details and costly materials.  As industrialization became more and more a part of everyday life, architects began integrating steel structure with these details and costly materials.  Supporters of the Arts and Crafts movement rebelled against this trend, refusing to allow industrialization to determine a muddled, crossbreed architectural style.  They believed the new direction of architecture should cast off the stipulations of past styles, and exist independently of the latest societal mania for industrialization.  While their intentions were good, however, what they believed at the time to be a fad in the end grew into the new norm.  Industrial materials and methods were here to stay, and the rebellious attitude exhibited by the Arts and Crafts movement found its way into other new styles.

The Red House, an example of
Arts and Crafts architecture.

                Beginning with the Art Nouveau style and progressing into many other styles to follow, the new building technology brought about by industrialization became the centerpiece of attention.  Some believed that with this new technology should arise a corresponding new architectural style.  For example, De Stijl was based on the idea similar to that of Arts and Crafts that the modern world should have its own new style not to be held back by the demands of past styles.  With industrialization, society was moving forward into a new age of sophistication.  Movements like De Stijl were aimed at rebelling against the outdated conception of sophistication in ornate details and compelling society to see elegance in simplicity, a new style for a new, changed world.  This idea continued throughout the remainder of the modern movements which we studied, sometimes more strongly than others.  At times the idea of rebellion was so strong it frightened people, as with the Bauhaus school or with Russian Constructivism, and some projects became almost obnoxious with the amount of crudeness and simplicity targeted at changing our perception of good architecture.  However it was addressed, though, the key idea remained constant through all divisions of the modern movements—architectural styles of the past were unfitting for the new world, as were outdated societal values, and a new style was needed to bring about necessary change.

Rietveld Schroder House, an example of De Stijl architecture.

Works Cited:

http://www.exploring-castles.com/characteristics_of_gothic_architecture.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_Red_House,_Bexleyheath.JPG

http://www.flickr.com/photos/j-fish/galleries/72157628182847177/#photo_2640649956

The Arts and Crafts Movement

                Although he was never an architect, William Morris’s influence on the Arts and Crafts movement brought about a style of architecture that was far different from that which was associated with the industrialization of the time.  His ideas and the style of Arts and Crafts emphasized human connection, natural beauty, and integration with the natural world, all concepts that seemed insignificant to the modern world which was becoming mechanized and impersonal.  The goal of the Arts and Crafts style was to bring a simplicity back to modern society that had been lost and forgotten in the push for new technologies, higher efficiency, and higher profits.

                The principles on which the Arts and Crafts style was based are similar to those which Ruskin believed and worked with.  Ruskin’s fear of the destruction of natural beauty by industrialization was shared by those associated with the Arts and Crafts movement.  As they believed, God’s greatest splendor could be found in nature.  The natural earth was a pure and magnificent work of art to them, and they believed in cohabitating with it rather than overpowering, controlling, and destroying it for personal gain.  The late nineteenth century was a fast-paced time of development, production, and growth of all things new and mechanized.  At the cost of rapid progress, Morris and other Arts and Crafts supporters saw that society was losing its connection with the earth on which it was living.  It was becoming a commodity, a resource to be processed and manufactured and sold for a profit.  The minds of the Arts and Crafts movement sought to regenerate an appreciation for nature and a connection between it and the people occupying it.  This idea can be seen in the works of architects such as Charles Rennie Mackintosh (1868-1928) and Bernard Maybeck (1862-1957).  They brought nature into their designs through details, materials, and integration of landscape and building design.  Instead of something new being erected on top of the nature that was there before—which was the general philosophy of industrialization at the time—their designs created a whole composition of building and landscape as one harmonious art form, fostering the appreciation for nature and its beauty that the industrialized world had been lacking.

                In addition to Ruskin’s fear of the destruction of natural beauty by industrialization, Morris and the Arts and Crafts movement also shared his value of the craftsman and of human connection.  As the industrialized world became more mechanized, it also became more impersonal.  Everything was being mass-produced, and nothing was unique anymore.  What once required attention and care from a human hand was now being handled by machines, and the product was no longer something a craftsman could take pride in.  Morris and architects of the Arts and Crafts movement believed in truth in materials and hand-crafted details to combat the machined and anonymous feeling of the products of industrialization.  They believed it was important for style to come from craftsmen employing their talents and to be appreciated by people because of its personal value and connection.  To them, this style was the answer to the problem of anonymity that had arisen from a society of mass-production.

                As seen in the works of Ruskin, the works that came out of the Arts and Crafts movement, and the principles suggested by William Morris, there was a need for style that would resist the push from industrialization and keep alive the appreciation of nature and people and the connection between them.  There was a need for style that would survive the transition from the hand-made to the mass-produced, style that would come from a person rather than a machine.  Morris and supporters of the Arts and Crafts movement believed this was the style society needed.





A tile design by William Morris &
Co. which demonstrates the

beauty found in nature.

Chick House designed by Maybeck in
Berkeley, CA, which emphasized the
connection between building and landscape.

 

 

 

Morris, W. (1882). Hopes and Fears for Art. London: Ellis and White. Retrieved from

     https://blackboard.bsu.edu/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab_tab_group_id=_2_1&url=%

     2Fwebapps%2Fblackboard%2Fexecute%2Flauncher%3Ftype%3DCourse%26id%3D_106280_1%

     26url%3D

 

 

Kinna, R. (2000). William Morris: Art, Work, and Leisure. Journal of the History of Ideas, 61(3), 493-

     512. Retrieved from https://blackboard.bsu.edu/webapps/blackboard/execute/content/file?

     cmd=view&content_id=_2197213_1&course_id=_106280_1

 

Harvey, C., & Press, J. (1995). John Ruskin and the Ethical Foundations of Morris & Company, 1861-

     96. Journal of Business Ethics, 14(3), 181-194. Retrieved from

     https://blackboard.bsu.edu/webapps/blackboard/execute/content/file?

     cmd=view&content_id=_2197214_1&course_id=_106280_1



Comparing and Contrasting Architectural Style: Ruskin, Viollet le Duc, and Semper

Ruskin, Viollet le Duc, and Semper demonstrated very different views of architectural style and what was important in “good architecture.”  While Viollet le Duc and Ruskin were both loyal to the Gothic style, their views of why it was important and how it should be thought of differed tremendously; Semper really was not concerned with style in the way the other two were at all.

A work by Ruskin, showing his love
of the beauty in nature

Ruskin saw unmatched beauty in the natural world, and he saw that pristine splendor being threatened by the coming of industrialization.  Modern materials and technologies of the 19^th century were artless to him, and they lacked the emotion and human connection that he believed turned a building into architecture.  His Seven Lamps of Architecture—Sacrifice, Truth, Power, Beauty, Life, Obedience, and Memory—clearly demonstrated his view that architecture is not something that is simply developed out of necessity; it is an expression of human values and feelings.  Ruskin believed that structure and necessity were to architecture what the blank canvas is to an artist—nothing, until the craftsman adds his personal touch of beauty and meaning.  He saw good architecture as a form of art that should be respected and celebrated.  The Gothic style portrayed all the values he looked for in good architecture, and therefor was the style to which he gave his loyalty.  Out of respect for this style, Ruskin thought it should be regenerated in new architecture and preserved in old architecture.  “The greatest glory of a building is not in its stones, nor in its gold.  It is in its age.”  As Ruskin stated here, he believed that a building of old age had a patina that could only be obtained through time, and that the work of art that it was should be honored and left to age as it will.

One of Viollet le Duc's projects,
showing his eagerness to combine
Gothic architecture with iron structure

Viollet le Duc saw the world and architecture in a much less personal and emotional manner than Ruskin.  He placed value, instead, on the rationality and functionality of architecture, and the mathematical reasoning which was used to arrive at a solution.  He, like Ruskin, favored the Gothic style, but not for its beauty and human connection.  Viollet le Duc in his dictionary explained that Gothic architecture was incredibly scientific and rational.  For this reason, he believed that this was the style that should be analyzed, understood, and reproduced for the modern world.  Unlike Ruskin, Viollet le Duc believed strongly in the promise of industrialization and the power of new building materials.  His designs incorporated the rational style of Gothic architecture with the innovation of new materials, updating the style for a changing world as he saw it.  He believed it was the duty of the modern architect to give shape and form to the technologies of the 19^th century, much like the Greeks gave shape and form to their mythologies.  Just as he saw it fitting to update the style for the modern world, Viollet le Duc also saw it appropriate to update old architecture, to restore rather than to preserve.  He thought a decaying work of art should be revitalized to a “complete state such as it may never have been in at any given moment,” a view opposing that of Ruskin.

Semper and Viollet le Duc shared the conviction that architecture was a rational and functional science.  Where they differed, and where Semper also differed from Ruskin, was in style.  Semper believed that “practical aesthetics” were more important than a predetermined style.  In his mindset, style was defined by function; therefor, imitating styles of the past was irrational.  He believed architecture arose from the needs of a society, and that architecture should answer those needs before assuming a style and form of its own.  While Semper’s views were vastly different from those of Ruskin and Viollet le Duc, one similarity can be seen between Semper and Ruskin; both were concerned with the connection between building and user.

 

Bibliography:

Summerson, J. (1949) Heavenly Mansions: And Other Essays on Architecture. W. W. Norton and

             Company. Retrieved from https://blackboard.bsu.edu/bbcswebdav/pid-2352860-dt-content-

rid-8210181_1/courses/2013Spr_ARCH329s1_Combined/Summerson%20Viollet%20le%

20Duc%20Heavenly%20Mansions%282%29.pdf

Pevsner, N. (1969) Ruskin and Viollet-le-Duc: Englishness and Frenchness in the Appreciation of

             Gothic Architecture. Thames & Hudson. Retrieved from

             https://blackboard.bsu.edu/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab_tab_group_id=_2_1&url=%

           2Fwebapps%2Fblackboard%2Fexecute%2Flauncher%3Ftype%3DCourse%26id%

             3D_106280_1%26url%3D

Hvattum, M. (2006) Gottfried Semper and the Problem of Historicism. Journal of the Society of

            Architectural Historians, 65(1), 136-139. Retrieved from

            http://www.jstor.org/stable/25068251