"Form follows function" might seem to imply a sort of 1:1 biological determinism. But a close reading of Darwin and later writers recognizes a degree of indeterminancy and randomness in the mechanism of natural selection. Some forms are non-functional, including some of what we call "beautiful". That's a space in which artists and architects may flourish.
Thank you for the comment. I would love to know what texts I should read to learn more about this (the indeterminacy in the mechanisms of natural selection)? Seems like a cool direction for an essay.
Hi David! I'm just summarizing from my reading of Darwin and others. Physical forms are mostly the result of random genetic mutations, the most adaptive of which are amplified (numerically) between generations by the mechanism of natural selection and inheritance. So many biological forms do serve a functional (adaptive) purpose, but many are just random variations. Not a rigid cause-effect thing. Will look forward to your essay about all that!
I can't help thinking about how difficult a peacock's tail makes it for him to fly. Still, who would ever wish for a stylistically pared down version of a peacock who was a more efficient flyer? Probably not even the peacock himself. 🦚
Hmmm I never realized that about Louis Sullivans intention with the idiom “form follows function” but that makes so much sense, especially bc he was also a botanist. Related —your studio’s project is very cool, reminds me of how Sullivan would study leaves to create ornamentation!
Do you know why this meaning ended up getting lost historically? Who misunderstood Sullivan? I’m curious, it’s odd. It’s interesting because it does feel related to the shift towards mass production, yet I don’t think modernism totally took over until the 40s or 50s?
thank you for the comment! The first shift in the function of this adage was spurred by Adolf Loos in 1908. he sort of took a moralistic stance saying that ornamentation was privative and that our civilization's progress depended on abandonment of decoration. His text "Ornament is Crime" became quite influential after WWI.
The other thing that happened following WWI was that using repetitive and standardized construction methods because SO economical because WWI created an advanced infrastructure for mass-production which architects needed to utilized in order to compete in the free market. Thus bespoke ornament became less accessible.
If you want names, your best bet are Corbusier, Gropius, and Peter Behrens who all valued efficiency and pragmatism in their work. They kind of took Sullivan's highly ornate early skyscrapers and stripped them of their decorations. Some say because they wanted to make money, others say it was because they believed in this new 'engineers aesthetic'. It was probably a bit of both. Like when I visit Villa Savoye or Barcelona Pavilion, I see the vision. Clearly not the design of people only interested in cutting costs.
This started to happen in the 20s-30s, but became so widespread post WWII due to the need to rebuild Europe efficiently and cheaply. Also, advances in steel, concrete and glass allowed us to use these modernist design ideas in broader settings. before the 40s. there were a only few buildings that you could call modernist. Quite a few chairs though, because those are easy to make :). The fact that we have so international style chairs before international style buildings seems to point to the fact that we needed technology to advance before we could make these towers.
hope this helps. its an honor to have such insightful and curious readers. please comment more if you feel compelled to :)
Architecture (the study of it's history, not the work itself haha) is a hobby of mine, but I'm certainly a noob. This is a great answer! I wish I could bookmark it, I'll settle for screenshotting it.
Also -- "Ornamentation is Crime" literally made my eyes go wide, that's absurd! I need to read this document, that's really interesting. The forces of needing to cheaply and efficiently rebuild europe makes total sense, as well as the bolstering of industrial society after World War One. Thank you for the illumination!
Love the section drawing! I find it interesting how modern the buildings all are from architecture school. As a student myself, who loves details and craft- it can be frustrating that design in schools is about ornament on the large scale, rather than the small.
Absolutely love scrolling through your beautiful posts. The amazing work, time ,skill and dedication by artisans are inspiring. I studied the decorative arts years ago and it never disappoints.
"Form follows function" might seem to imply a sort of 1:1 biological determinism. But a close reading of Darwin and later writers recognizes a degree of indeterminancy and randomness in the mechanism of natural selection. Some forms are non-functional, including some of what we call "beautiful". That's a space in which artists and architects may flourish.
Thank you for the comment. I would love to know what texts I should read to learn more about this (the indeterminacy in the mechanisms of natural selection)? Seems like a cool direction for an essay.
Hi David! I'm just summarizing from my reading of Darwin and others. Physical forms are mostly the result of random genetic mutations, the most adaptive of which are amplified (numerically) between generations by the mechanism of natural selection and inheritance. So many biological forms do serve a functional (adaptive) purpose, but many are just random variations. Not a rigid cause-effect thing. Will look forward to your essay about all that!
I can't help thinking about how difficult a peacock's tail makes it for him to fly. Still, who would ever wish for a stylistically pared down version of a peacock who was a more efficient flyer? Probably not even the peacock himself. 🦚
I wouldn’t mind dusting that wood either.
I'm glad you see the light as well! hahaha
Hmmm I never realized that about Louis Sullivans intention with the idiom “form follows function” but that makes so much sense, especially bc he was also a botanist. Related —your studio’s project is very cool, reminds me of how Sullivan would study leaves to create ornamentation!
Do you know why this meaning ended up getting lost historically? Who misunderstood Sullivan? I’m curious, it’s odd. It’s interesting because it does feel related to the shift towards mass production, yet I don’t think modernism totally took over until the 40s or 50s?
thank you for the comment! The first shift in the function of this adage was spurred by Adolf Loos in 1908. he sort of took a moralistic stance saying that ornamentation was privative and that our civilization's progress depended on abandonment of decoration. His text "Ornament is Crime" became quite influential after WWI.
The other thing that happened following WWI was that using repetitive and standardized construction methods because SO economical because WWI created an advanced infrastructure for mass-production which architects needed to utilized in order to compete in the free market. Thus bespoke ornament became less accessible.
If you want names, your best bet are Corbusier, Gropius, and Peter Behrens who all valued efficiency and pragmatism in their work. They kind of took Sullivan's highly ornate early skyscrapers and stripped them of their decorations. Some say because they wanted to make money, others say it was because they believed in this new 'engineers aesthetic'. It was probably a bit of both. Like when I visit Villa Savoye or Barcelona Pavilion, I see the vision. Clearly not the design of people only interested in cutting costs.
This started to happen in the 20s-30s, but became so widespread post WWII due to the need to rebuild Europe efficiently and cheaply. Also, advances in steel, concrete and glass allowed us to use these modernist design ideas in broader settings. before the 40s. there were a only few buildings that you could call modernist. Quite a few chairs though, because those are easy to make :). The fact that we have so international style chairs before international style buildings seems to point to the fact that we needed technology to advance before we could make these towers.
hope this helps. its an honor to have such insightful and curious readers. please comment more if you feel compelled to :)
Architecture (the study of it's history, not the work itself haha) is a hobby of mine, but I'm certainly a noob. This is a great answer! I wish I could bookmark it, I'll settle for screenshotting it.
Also -- "Ornamentation is Crime" literally made my eyes go wide, that's absurd! I need to read this document, that's really interesting. The forces of needing to cheaply and efficiently rebuild europe makes total sense, as well as the bolstering of industrial society after World War One. Thank you for the illumination!
Further readings: https://www2.gwu.edu/~art/Temporary_SL/177/pdfs/Loos.pdf
Also, my bad on this one. It's "Ornament And Crime"
perfect! thank you for sharing
Love the section drawing! I find it interesting how modern the buildings all are from architecture school. As a student myself, who loves details and craft- it can be frustrating that design in schools is about ornament on the large scale, rather than the small.
Absolutely love scrolling through your beautiful posts. The amazing work, time ,skill and dedication by artisans are inspiring. I studied the decorative arts years ago and it never disappoints.