There is a longstanding debate over the relevance of form and function in architecture and design, with different schools of thought representing various perspectives. Indeed, the relationship between form and function is still discussed today. This essay starts with Louis Sullivan’s motto, “form follows function”. This observation goes beyond the contradictory nature of form. Rather, it is based on philosophical considerations that reflect different cultural concerns and eras. This work aims to deepen and nuance the understanding of the maxim “form follows function” by exploring philosophical perspectives and their practical implications. In particular, this essay focuses on the complex relationship between the two concepts of architecture and design to promote a holistic approach that goes beyond conventional dichotomies. Qualitative analysis explores the interplay of form and function through ontological interpretation and historical document analysis of Sullivan’s dictum in different dimensions. We note that the instrumentalist approach defends the metaphysical dimension to the meaning of the creed, i.e. attributing a truth value to a fact or a statement. This approach foregrounds the function and purpose of the object, so that its design can crystallise and effectively fulfill its intended role. Aristotle’s hermeneutic interpretation is based on four laws of causality: material, formal, efficient, and final. Formalism tends to downplay or set aside the roles of interpretation, context, and external factors in understanding a system or object. Functionalism, on the other hand, upholds and supports the adaptation of form to human needs. Moreover, architecture is more than a simple, functional dwelling; it is a means by which humans inhabit their environment and enter a relationship with it. The epistemological strength of Sullivan’s motto is based on arguments supported by documentary texts. This literature exploration opened a multidimensional debate throughout the discussion, through which inspiring answers were provided, aiming to understand under what conditions one of the two concepts should align with the visions of the schools of thought in the creative process in architecture and design.
References
[1]
Alasmar, R. (2019). Philosophy and Perception of Beauty in Architecture. American Journal of Civil Engineering, 7, 126-132. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajce.20190705.12
[2]
Bhatt, M., Hois, J., & Kutz, O. (2012). Ontological Modelling of Form and Function for Architectural Design. Applied Ontology, 7, 233-267. https://doi.org/10.3233/ao-2012-0104
[3]
Charlton, W. (2006). Physics: Books I and II. Clarendon Press.
[4]
Crabbe, A. (2013). Reconsidering the Form and Function Relationship in Artificial Objects. Design Issues, 29, 5-16. https://doi.org/10.1162/desi_a_00226
[5]
de Zurko, E. R. (1957). Origin of Functionalist Theory. Columbia University Press. https://monoskop.org/images/6/65/Zurko_Edward_Robert_de_Origins_of_Functionalist_Theory.pdf
[6]
Führ, C. E. H., & Poerschke, U. (2012). Function, Purpose, Use in Architecture and Urbanism. International Journal of Architectural Theory, 17, 5-8. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280087572_Function_Purpose_Use_in_Architecture_and_Urbanism
[7]
Heidegger, M. (1971). Poetry Language Thought—Building, Dwelling, Thinking. Harper. https://www.contentarchive.wwf.gr/images/pdfs/pe/katoikein/Filosofia_Building%20Dwelling%20Thinking.pdf
[8]
Heidegger, M. (1996). Being and Time. State University Press. https://epdf.pub/being-and-time.html
[9]
Heidegger, M. (2001). The Origin of the Work of Art: The Thing of the Work. Cambridge University Press.
[10]
Hendrix, J. S. (2013). The Contradiction between Form and Function in Architecture. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203070932
[11]
Hwang, K. (2020). Form Follows Function, Function Follows Form. Journal of Craniofacial Surgery, 31, 335. https://doi.org/10.1097/scs.0000000000005891
[12]
Illies, C., & Ray, N. (2009). Philosophy of Architecture. In A. Meijers (Ed.), Philosophy of Technology and Engineering Sciences (pp. 1199-1256). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-444-51667-1.50047-1
[13]
Kirschman, C. F., & Fadel, G. M. (1998). Classifying Functions for Mechanical Design. Journal of Mechanical Design, 120, 475-482. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.2829176
[14]
Kirwan, C. (1998). Metaphysics, Books Gamma, Delta, and Epsilon. Clarendon Press.
[15]
Menges, A. (2006). Polymorphism. Architectural Design, 76, 78-87. https://doi.org/10.1002/ad.243
[16]
Morgan, M. (1914). The Ten Book on Architecture. Oxford University Press. https://www.chenarch.com/images/arch-texts/0000-Vitruvius-50BC-Ten-Books-of-Architecture.pdf
[17]
Norman, D. (2013). The Design of Everyday Things (Revised and Expanded ed.). Basic Books.
[18]
Sullivan, L. (1979). The Tall Office Building Artistically Considered. Kindergarten Chats and Other Writings. Courrier Corporation. https://www2.gwu.edu/~art/Temporary_SL/177/pdfs/Sullivan_Tall.pdf
[19]
Townsend, J. D., Montoya, M. M., & Calantone, R. J. (2011). Form and Function: A Matter of Perspective. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 28, 374-377. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2011.00804.x
[20]
Xiao, D. W. (2015). No Function, No Form, No Architecture. Xinjiang Architectural Design and Research Institute.
[21]
Zevi, B. (1994). Modern Language of Architecture. Da Capro Press.
