Replies

Hi Richard,

I’d really take another look at Wright from the standpoint of function. I think his interiors are exquisite—the use of horizontal lines that relate the interior to the exterior, the blending of materials to relate structure to natural surroundings and the relatively intimate scale of his domestic structures has become integral to building conventions.

“Form follows function” was—according to them—the first principal of the International (European) minimalist style. This is why the stripped their buildings of all decorative elements.

The problem is that people want more than mere function, they want room for their stuff, things to remind them of where they are and where they came from, afford privacy, make them feel safe, etc. They want symbols around them. They want to feel a part of a community, and at the same time keep a sense of individuality. The International style
ignored this.

I can’t recommend Tom Wolfe’s book on this highly enough. It’s a quick, entertaining survey of 20th century architecture.

On the form follows function, the minimalists may have talked the talk but didn't walk the walk. In the building that's being discussed, one of the problems is that the architect didn't have expansion joints. If form REALLY followed function, the expansion joints would have been there. In minimalist design, they HIDE the functional parts, rather than letting the function be revealed in the form. In true form follows function, there is nothing decorative, but the functional elements are exposed, and it's trusted that the functional aspect will be beautiful because it is purely functional.

In terms of form follows function, I think Amish furniture is an excellent example.

There are no purely decorative parts, but the necessary functional parts are clearly visible.