“It is the pervading law of all things organic and inorganic, Of all things physical and metaphysical,
Of all things human and all things super-human,
Of all true manifestations of the head, Of the heart, Of the soul,
That the life is recognizable in its expression, That form ever follows function. This is the law.”
Louis Sullivan’s 1896 Declaration that “form ever follows function” was a guiding principle when the practice of industrial design was born. The path of these ideals leads us through confusing terrain. What began as a largely political approach to design transformed into a practical approach and again into a style. Today designers can be prisoners of functionalism-the-style and the true meaning of functionalism appears lost, if it ever was known. Movements opposing functionalism-the-style often end in disaster. I want to know how we got into this mess and how we can get out. To find the answers I will explore William Morris’ functionalism, the transition to functionalism as a style and works that rebelled against it. Those designers who have challenged functionalism illustrate an important point, it is not enough to challenge the style of functionalism; we as designers need to reinvent the wheel by turning to an understanding of functionalism inspired by nature and untarnished by over a century of use.
In the beginning functionalism was the idea that “form follows function. Style follows use. This is the Fundamental concept. Its practice means that every work of design will have a functionally appropriate individual form or structural gesture” (Adams). William Morris was one of the earliest to explore these ideas. He pioneered the Arts and Crafts movement and wrote extensively about design as a social practice. “Morris clearly revealed the structural, materials and functional properties of his furniture designs and two dimensional organic wallpaper patterns to signify concrete, objective truths about how these objects are made and how they are used” (Weingarden 9). At its inception functionalism was a social concept having to do with the idea that all the objects we use should be honest to their construction, both reverential and available to the proletariat who create them.
In the mid 1930’s functionalism began to adopt a new meaning in its transition from ideology to style. The Bauhaus designers in the Weimar began a new movement led by Walter Gropius that used the mantra that form follows function for more practical and economic conceptions of function than Morris. The Bauhaus designers insisted that design be honest about manufacture and commercially available just as Morris’ had written, but they were the first to explore mass production. With this idea came the opportunity to incorporate the machine in new ways. Gropius wrote “Freeing the machine from its lack of creative spirit and in the process making the ‘useless’ useful” (Weingarden 10). This subtly marks the beginning of the end for Morris’ functionalism, which emphasized forms honest to their production but developed by human hands. Here, the machine is given creative authority. Gropius takes the burden of form from the designer and declares that the machines of manufacture have creative control. From this point on minimalist style slowly replaced the persistent striving for objects that truly satisfy functional, social and emotional needs.
As is always the case in history, every movement inspires a counterrevolution desperate to turn the status quo upside down, in this case the revolution is postmodernism. Frank Gehry and Peter Eisenmann emerged as strong voices against the minimalism of functionalism-the-style. They see themselves primarily as artists and subscribe to the belief that function can and will follow form. They aspire to break ground by developing forms and seeking the manufacturing capabilities to achieve them. Unfortunately, their work is riddled with problems. Gehry’s Walt Disney Concert Hall is strikingly beautiful but it caused major problems for its neighbors because of glare and had to undergo a costly sandblasting operation to be able to exist safely in its environment (USA Today). Peter Eisenmann’s House VI was designed as a deconstructivist project in which the house was designed by breaking up a grid. The clients lost everything when the project went over budget and resulted in an almost uninhabitable house (Russell). These projects suggest that a counterrevolutionary response to functionalism will not allow designers to break free of the dogma of minimalism without sacrificing too much function. There has to be another way.
When the endless back and forth of revolution and counterrevolution can’t get the job done, it’s necessary to go back to beginning. The moment we went wrong was the moment in which designers relinquished authority over the form of their designs to machines. Satisfying the social, functional, emotional and ergonomic requirements of a project and developing exciting forms need not be mutually exclusive. For inspiration on how to do this the best example is nature. Nothing in the natural world exists by accident. Billions of years of trial and error have led every cell and stone to how it is today. Either despite or because of the fact that the form of every living and non-living natural element is determined by function there exist in nature forms of breathtaking beauty and complexity. Long before the industrial revolution humans began to develop tools based on what they saw in the world around them. They were inspired by the tooth and nail of animals and they began to cut stone and sharpened sticks to achieve an edge in mastering nature. As I explore in my Time Capsule and Lighting timelines, the most groundbreaking human inventions exist in natural forms as well. Billions of years before we mastered fire, let alone developed synthetic photoluminescence, bioluminescent organisms roamed the earth. Long before humans began to record our history for the generations fossils developed deep beneath the oceans to reveal their secret histories to us all these years later. These natural organisms are not rectangular and minimal, but they are beautiful because of the tasks they are “designed” to do, not in spite of them. When a designer sets out to create a product they may feel an artificial pull between settling on the most basic form needed to get the job done, or throwing function out the window and focusing on an exciting and dynamic form study. This is a false dichotomy. By drawing inspiration from the natural processes that drive invention we can use our quest for function to explore dynamic, exciting and unique forms, creating products with the visual impact of a Frank Gehry building and the functional integrity of a Bauhaus chair.
-- Louis Sullivan, 1896
Louis Sullivan’s 1896 Declaration that “form ever follows function” was a guiding principle when the practice of industrial design was born. The path of these ideals leads us through confusing terrain. What began as a largely political approach to design transformed into a practical approach and again into a style. Today designers can be prisoners of functionalism-the-style and the true meaning of functionalism appears lost, if it ever was known. Movements opposing functionalism-the-style often end in disaster. I want to know how we got into this mess and how we can get out. To find the answers I will explore William Morris’ functionalism, the transition to functionalism as a style and works that rebelled against it. Those designers who have challenged functionalism illustrate an important point, it is not enough to challenge the style of functionalism; we as designers need to reinvent the wheel by turning to an understanding of functionalism inspired by nature and untarnished by over a century of use.
In the beginning functionalism was the idea that “form follows function. Style follows use. This is the Fundamental concept. Its practice means that every work of design will have a functionally appropriate individual form or structural gesture” (Adams). William Morris was one of the earliest to explore these ideas. He pioneered the Arts and Crafts movement and wrote extensively about design as a social practice. “Morris clearly revealed the structural, materials and functional properties of his furniture designs and two dimensional organic wallpaper patterns to signify concrete, objective truths about how these objects are made and how they are used” (Weingarden 9). At its inception functionalism was a social concept having to do with the idea that all the objects we use should be honest to their construction, both reverential and available to the proletariat who create them.
In the mid 1930’s functionalism began to adopt a new meaning in its transition from ideology to style. The Bauhaus designers in the Weimar began a new movement led by Walter Gropius that used the mantra that form follows function for more practical and economic conceptions of function than Morris. The Bauhaus designers insisted that design be honest about manufacture and commercially available just as Morris’ had written, but they were the first to explore mass production. With this idea came the opportunity to incorporate the machine in new ways. Gropius wrote “Freeing the machine from its lack of creative spirit and in the process making the ‘useless’ useful” (Weingarden 10). This subtly marks the beginning of the end for Morris’ functionalism, which emphasized forms honest to their production but developed by human hands. Here, the machine is given creative authority. Gropius takes the burden of form from the designer and declares that the machines of manufacture have creative control. From this point on minimalist style slowly replaced the persistent striving for objects that truly satisfy functional, social and emotional needs.
As is always the case in history, every movement inspires a counterrevolution desperate to turn the status quo upside down, in this case the revolution is postmodernism. Frank Gehry and Peter Eisenmann emerged as strong voices against the minimalism of functionalism-the-style. They see themselves primarily as artists and subscribe to the belief that function can and will follow form. They aspire to break ground by developing forms and seeking the manufacturing capabilities to achieve them. Unfortunately, their work is riddled with problems. Gehry’s Walt Disney Concert Hall is strikingly beautiful but it caused major problems for its neighbors because of glare and had to undergo a costly sandblasting operation to be able to exist safely in its environment (USA Today). Peter Eisenmann’s House VI was designed as a deconstructivist project in which the house was designed by breaking up a grid. The clients lost everything when the project went over budget and resulted in an almost uninhabitable house (Russell). These projects suggest that a counterrevolutionary response to functionalism will not allow designers to break free of the dogma of minimalism without sacrificing too much function. There has to be another way.
When the endless back and forth of revolution and counterrevolution can’t get the job done, it’s necessary to go back to beginning. The moment we went wrong was the moment in which designers relinquished authority over the form of their designs to machines. Satisfying the social, functional, emotional and ergonomic requirements of a project and developing exciting forms need not be mutually exclusive. For inspiration on how to do this the best example is nature. Nothing in the natural world exists by accident. Billions of years of trial and error have led every cell and stone to how it is today. Either despite or because of the fact that the form of every living and non-living natural element is determined by function there exist in nature forms of breathtaking beauty and complexity. Long before the industrial revolution humans began to develop tools based on what they saw in the world around them. They were inspired by the tooth and nail of animals and they began to cut stone and sharpened sticks to achieve an edge in mastering nature. As I explore in my Time Capsule and Lighting timelines, the most groundbreaking human inventions exist in natural forms as well. Billions of years before we mastered fire, let alone developed synthetic photoluminescence, bioluminescent organisms roamed the earth. Long before humans began to record our history for the generations fossils developed deep beneath the oceans to reveal their secret histories to us all these years later. These natural organisms are not rectangular and minimal, but they are beautiful because of the tasks they are “designed” to do, not in spite of them. When a designer sets out to create a product they may feel an artificial pull between settling on the most basic form needed to get the job done, or throwing function out the window and focusing on an exciting and dynamic form study. This is a false dichotomy. By drawing inspiration from the natural processes that drive invention we can use our quest for function to explore dynamic, exciting and unique forms, creating products with the visual impact of a Frank Gehry building and the functional integrity of a Bauhaus chair.
Works Cited
-Adams, David. "Organic Functionalism." Waldorf Research Institute. Waldorf Research Institute.
-Loos, Adolf, and Adolf Opel. Ornament and Crime : Selected Essays. Trans. Michael Mitchell. New York: Ariadne P,
1998.
-"New L.A. Concert Hall Raises Temperatures of Neighbors." USA Today 24 Feb. 2004.
-Russell, Barry. "Peter Eisenmann's House VI: The Client's Response- Book Reviews." 1995. BNet. 23 Oct. 2008
-Weingarden, Lauren S. "Aesthetics Politicized: William Morriss to the Bauhaus." Journal of Architectural Education
38 (1985): 8-13.
No comments:
Post a Comment