Form Vs. Function
Running Head: FORM VERSUS FUNCTION
Form Versus Function:
The Importance of Artistic Purpose in Architectural Design
Chris Atkinson
Salt Lake Community College
1
Form Vs. Function
2
Form Versus Function:
The Importance of Artistic Purpose in Architectural Design
For thousands of years, architecture has been a staple of cultural significance. Everything
from religion to location has dictated what form the building should take. In the twenty first
century, we seem to have changed our way of thinking. Sure, we still build based on our cultures,
but now the function of the building seems to be more important. Office buildings are plain
boxes that hold hundreds, if not thousands, of cubicles in a boring, yet proficient manner. Some
buildings take on a certain shape based on their function while others are formed artistically and
with passion before taking into account everything that will be necessary to be efficient. What
should be more important in the architectural design of a building: form or function?
Louis H. Sullivan says that "form ever follows function." Office buildings are built the
same because they all function the same and it is a simple natural law to follow (Sullivan, 1986).
There is more to it than that. The function of an office is to run business, but why does it mean
that we have to feel like we are trapped in an endless tower of boredom? I understand that
function can possibly lead to a certain form, but when taking into account what the building is
going to be used for, the architect must have an open mind. If he does not, then we are stuck in
dull surroundings.
Throughout history, many different cultures have figured out unique ways of creating a
functional, architectural space. While all may seem different, they keep the same basic principle
of a load bearing structure. When looking in different civilizations one can find that they
disregard the expression of static function of their bearing structure and build on what they feel
to be inspiring (Zannos, 1987). What is architecture if not one of the most archaic forms of art?
Form Vs. Function
3
Many people visit foreign lands just to see the history of the architecture and to be moved
emotionally.
There is a reason that humans want to be stimulated. Life would be tedious and dreary if
everything were the same. We are in the era where neuroscience is used to study how humans are
affected by their surroundings. Margaret R. Tarampi, a doctor of philosophy candidate at the
University of Utah, has been studying the birth of new neurons based on environmental
stimulation. "[M]ice that were placed in an enriched environment...had up to 15 percent more
neuron birth compared to mice that lived in standard cages." She also claims that poor
architectural design like low income housing projects prove to have negative consequences on
human life (Tarampi, 2010).
Frank Lloyd Wright, arguably one of the greatest American architects, had a very
naturalistic approach to architecture. He believed that there should be as many kinds of houses as
there are people and that anyone has a right to expression in their own environment (Wright,
2005). Expression is something that a lot of people take for granted. A large sum of humans in
America believe that they must do what everyone else expects of them. Never are they to feel
special or encouraged by their surroundings, but to sit down, shut up, and do what they are told.
It is sad to see so many human beings brought down by such expectations.
One thing that Wright stated really stood out to me. He writes, "What quality of style the
buildings may possess is due to the artistry with which the conventionalization as a solution and
an artistic expression of a specific problem within these limitations has been handled (2005)." I
completely agree that it is an architect's duty to take a problem, such as what function the
structure may have, and think creatively and artistically to produce his own style. Wright had a
simple, yet elegant style and always worked around the necessity of his architecture. Now keep
in mind that I am not recanting my previous statement of the importance of form before function,
Form Vs. Function
4
I am merely stating that style is achievable when working around function. Art is an expression
of one's soul and must not be diluted by limitations.
Some may say that pure, raw artistic form in a building can be costly and inefficient. That
may even be true in some cases. Take the works of Frank Ghery for example. Many complain
that his style is garish and overdone just for the sake of being so. Quite a few students
complained about his $50 million research center/ library project at the Art Center College of
Design in Pasadena. They believed that it was a waste of their tuition money, which had been
raised 5-6% annually the past 5 years. While Ghery may be a gaudy, architectural designer, he is
incredibly efficient with the use of current design software and it is not his fault the school is
spending the money on his services. Cost always goes up when the demand for it is high. The
plea for an incredibly unique designer is skyrocketing especially in an artistic backdrop like the
College of Design. It is like paying thousands of dollars for a Gucci handbag. One pays, of
course, for the luxurious look, but you are mostly paying for the name.
Referring back to Sullivan, does form ever follow function? Do we need to keep the tall
office building the same on every level? Peter Trebsche claims that, "If function alone
determined form, all architectural buildings of the world would look the same, at least under
identical basic conditions (2009)." Is that what we really want? He goes on to say that
modernism not only function, but climate, topography, available materials, symbolism, and
social structures will always influence the form. More than ever it is the architecture that is the
symbol (Trebsche, 2009). To live in a world without expression is to live a life without
experience. Most people will agree that art is necessary in some form or another, whether it be
music, painting, poetry, or architecture. We first and foremost need thought-provoking form to
bring the function alive.
Form Vs. Function
References
Sullivan, L. H. (1986). The tall office building artistically considered. Lippincott's Magazine,
(1986, March), 403-409
Tarampi, M. R. (2010). Neuro-architecture: How design designs us [Interview with Lee W.
Waldrep, Ph.D.]. Becoming an Architect: A Guide to Careers in Design (2nd ed.) (pp. 8993). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Trebsche, P. (2009). Does form follow function? Towards a methodical interpretation of
archaeological building features. World Archaeology, 41(3), 506-519
Wright, F. L. (2005). In the cause of architecture. In McCarter, R. (Ed.), On and by Frank Lloyd
Wright: A primer of architectural principles (pp. 338-344). London: Phaidon Press Limited
Zannos, A. (1987). Form and structure in architecture: The role of statical function. New York:
Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, Inc.
5