(29/10/2019 - 20:00)
Does Form follow Function, or does Function follow Form, that is the real question?
There have always been a controversy on this very well-known quote in the architecture world: “Function follows the form.” Is it true, or is it not?
This article by Moussavi, thoroughly believes and supports this concept. Farshid Moussavi gives a provocative study of the verifiably restricting connection among capacity and structure to uncover the inconsistency at the core of innovation.
Going back to the nineteenth century, where Louis Sullivan first wanted to implement this idea, in which he described that each building’s design and composition should match its served purpose. Before the movement, architecture only had two possible positions; either an instrument or a culture. Micheal Hays then proposed a different angle, and that is identifying the concept of architecture in-between both instrument and culture, meaning that architecture can operate independently. Hence, three forms were created; unmediated, mediated and novel.
UNMEDIATED FORMS
Starting by unmediated forms, this strategy concentrates on history, which include the antiquated Greek idea of techné, comprehended as the balanced reason for the development of items, and medieval thoughts of the mechanical expressions, which thought about fabricated structures as utilitarian articles.
Viollet-le-Duc propelled his hypothesis of basic logic, which concerned itself with useful productivity and the legitimate articulation of structures and materials as the premise for the outer appearance of structures.
Another introduced concept was deconstruction, advanced during the 1980s by designers and compositional pundits, for example, Bernard Tschumi, Mark Wigley and Philip Johnson, planned to replace simply article or subject-situated frameworks by making a face to face encounter between them.
Rather than form following function, function pursues deformation.
MEDIATED FORMS
Furthermore, mediated structures, developed because of reactions of innovation's unadulterated spotlight on the item (development, machines, structure), designers of the 1970s searched for a technique for interceding between object (fabricated structure) and subject (individuals, nature). Robert Venturi and Denise Scott-Brown pushed the extension of certain pictures or good stories (moral stories) to the pioneer object as an approach to negate the objective and predictable disposition of structure and program, to broaden a "luxury of connoting".
NOVEL FORMS
Lastly, Novel forms, since the 1970s, private endeavor has entered another stage portrayed by decentralization and the revolution of creation. Systems of age and use have been changed as a result. The enormous scale assembling of standardized items has offered way to another technique for creation, known as Flexible Specialization, which has introduced systems of work and machines that can mass-change things to take into account miniaturized scale markets and individual clients. Driven by the prerequisite for peculiarity rather than volume, this new technique for creation is working up a relationship between the way in which things are made and the way in which they are seen.
EXCLUSIVE/NEW
An "hourglass" From St. James's and Elephant & Castle,
A diamond from Embankment and Southwark,
A spire from Vauxhall and London Bridge.
These are ventures which move structure past the development of a static character and the portrayal of a solitary basic position. Like a sort of political physiology, they defeat the traditional split among ideas and precepts, opening the structure procedure to the unique manners by which they can join to create structures that permit individuals with contrasting perspectives and sensibilities to build up a full of feeling association with their condition.
and it makes me wonder, what theory would come next, and change the outlook of architecture?!
Elshimaa Essam 10017747838
Comments