Form follows function

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wainwright Building by Louis Sullivan

Form follows function is a principle associated with modernist architecture and industrial
design in the 20th century. The principle is that the shape of a building or object should be
primarily based upon its intended function or purpose.

Contents

1 Origins of the phrase

2 Debate on the functionality of ornamentation

3 Application in different fields

o 3.1 Architecture
o 3.2 Product design
o 3.3 Software engineering
o 3.4 Automobile designing
o 3.5 Evolution

4 See also

5 Notes and references

6 External links

Origins of the phrase

The American architect Louis Sullivan coined the phrase, although the authorship of the phrase
is often wrongly ascribed to the American sculptor Horatio Greenough,[1] whose thinking to a
large extent predates the later functionalist approach to architecture. Greenough's writings were
for a long time largely forgotten, and were rediscovered only in the 1930s; in 1947 a selection of
his essays was published under the title Form and Function: Remarks on Art by Horatio
Greenough.
Sullivan, Greenough's much younger compatriot, who admired rationalist thinkers like
Greenough, Thoreau, Emerson, Whitman and Melville, coined the phrase in his article The Tall
Office Building Artistically Considered in 1896 (some fifty years after Greenough's death),[2]
though Sullivan later attributed the core idea to Marcus Vitruvius Pollio the Roman architect,
engineer and author who first asserted in his book De architectura that a structure must exhibit
the three qualities of firmitas, utilitas, venustas that is, it must be solid, useful, beautiful.[3] Here
Sullivan actually said "form ever follows function", but the simpler (and less emphatic) phrase is
the one usually remembered. For Sullivan this was distilled wisdom, an aesthetic credo, the
single "rule that shall permit of no exception". The full quote is thus:
"Whether it be the sweeping eagle in his flight, or the open apple-blossom, the toiling workhorse, the blithe swan, the branching oak, the winding stream at its base, the drifting clouds, over
all the coursing sun, form ever follows function, and this is the law. Where function does not
change, form does not change. The granite rocks, the ever-brooding hills, remain for ages; the
lightning lives, comes into shape, and dies, in a twinkling.
It is the pervading law of all things organic and inorganic, of all things physical and
metaphysical, of all things human and all things superhuman, 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."[4]
Sullivan developed the shape of the tall steel skyscraper in late 19th Century Chicago at the very
moment when technology, taste and economic forces converged and made it necessary to drop
the established styles of the past. If the shape of the building was not going to be chosen out of
the old pattern book something had to determine form, and according to Sullivan it was going to
be the purpose of the building. It was "form follows function", as opposed to "form follows
precedent". Sullivan's assistant Frank Lloyd Wright adopted and professed the same principle in
slightly different formperhaps because shaking off the old styles gave them more freedom and
latitude.

Debate on the functionality of ornamentation

In 1908 the Austrian architect Adolf Loos wrote an allegorical essay titled Ornament and Crime
in reaction to the excessive invented ornament used by the Vienna Secession architects.
Modernists adopted Loos's moralistic argument as well as Sullivan's maxim form follows
function. Loos had worked as a carpenter in the USA. He celebrated efficient plumbing and
industrial artifacts like corn silos and steel water towers as examples of functional design.[5][nonprimary source needed]

Application in different fields

Architecture
This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this
article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged
and removed. (June 2011) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
Louis Sullivan's phrase "form (ever) follows function" became a battle-cry of Modernist
architects after the 1930s. The credo was taken to imply that decorative elements, which
architects call "ornament," were superfluous in modern buildings. However, Sullivan himself
neither thought nor designed along such dogmatic lines during the peak of his career. Indeed,
while his buildings could be spare and crisp in their principal masses, he often punctuated their
plain surfaces with eruptions of lush Art Nouveau and something like Celtic Revival decorations,
usually cast in iron or terra cotta, and ranging from organic forms like vines and ivy, to more
geometric designs, and interlace, inspired by his Irish design heritage. Probably the most famous
example is the writhing green ironwork that covers the entrance canopies of the Carson, Pirie,
Scott and Company Building on South State Street in Chicago. These ornaments, often executed
by the talented younger draftsman in Sullivan's employ, would eventually become Sullivan's
trade mark; to students of architecture, they are his instantly-recognizable signature.

Product design
One episode in the history of the inherent conflict between functional design and the demands of
the marketplace happened in 1935, after the introduction of the streamlined Chrysler Airflow,
when the American auto industry temporarily halted attempts to introduce optimal aerodynamic
forms into mass manufacture. Some car makers thought that aerodynamic efficiency would result
in a single optimal auto-body shape, a "teardrop" shape, which would not be good for unit sales.
[6]
GM thereafter adopted two different positions on streamlining, one meant for its internal
engineering community, the other meant for its customers. Like the annual model year change,
so-called aerodynamic styling is often meaningless in terms of technical performance.
Subsequently drag coefficient has become both a marketing tool and a means of improving the
sale-ability of a car by reducing its fuel consumption, slightly, and increasing its top speed,
markedly.
The American industrial designers of the 1930s and '40s like Raymond Loewy, Norman bel
Geddes and Henry Dreyfuss grappled with the inherent contradictions of "form follows function"
as they redesigned blenders and locomotives and duplicating machines for mass-market
consumption. Loewy formulated his "MAYA" (Most Advanced Yet Acceptable) principle to

express that product designs are bounded by functional constraints of math and materials and
logic, but their acceptance is constrained by social expectations.
By honestly applying "form follows function", industrial designers had the potential to put their
clients out of business.[citation needed] Some simple single-purpose objects like screwdrivers and
pencils and teapots might be reducible to a single optimal form, precluding product
differentiation. Some objects made too durable would prevent sales of replacements. (cf. planned
obsolescence) From the standpoint of functionality, some products are simply unnecessary.
Victor Papanek (died 1998) was an influential recent designer and design philosopher who taught
and wrote as a proponent of "form follows function."

Software engineering
It has been argued that the structure and internal quality attributes of a working, non-trivial
software artifact will represent first and foremost the engineering requirements of its
construction, with the influence of process being marginal, if any. This does not mean that
process is irrelevant, but that processes compatible with an artifact's requirements lead to roughly
similar results.[7]
The principle can also be applied to Enterprise Application Architectures of modern business
where "function" is the Business processes which should be assisted by the enterprise
architecture, or "form". If the architecture dictates how the business operates then the business is
likely to suffer from inflexibility unable to adapt to change. SOA Service-Oriented Architecture
enables an Enterprise Architect to rearrange the "form" of the architecture to meet the functional
requirements of a business by adopting standards based communication protocols which enable
interoperability.
Furthermore, Domain-Driven Design postulates that structure (Software architecture, Design
Pattern, Implementation) should emerge from constraints of the modeled domain (Functional
requirement).
While "form" and "function" may be more or less explicit and invariant concepts to the many
engineering doctrines, Metaprogramming and the Functional programming paradigm lend
themselves very well to explore, blur and invert the essence of those two concepts.
The Agile software development movement espouses techniques such as 'test driven
development' in which the engineer begins with a minimum unit of user oriented functionality,
creates an automated test for such and then implements the functionality and iterates, repeating
this process. The result and argument for this discipline are that the structure or 'form' emerges
from actual function and in fact because done organically, makes the project more adaptable long
term as well of as higher quality because of the functional base of automated tests.

Automobile designing

If the design of an automobile conforms to its function, for instance the Fiat Multipla's shape is
partly due to the desire to sit six people in two rows then its form is said to follow its function.[8]

Evolution
This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this
article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged
and removed. (June 2011) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
According to Lamarck's long-discredited theory of evolution, anatomy will be structured
according to functions associated with use; for instance, giraffes are taller to reach the leaves of
trees. By contrast, in Darwinian evolution, form (variation) precedes function (as determined by
selection). That is to say in Lamarckian evolution the form is altered by the required function,
whereas in Darwinian evolution small variations in form all

Formalism and Anti-formalism

5.1 Formalism
In its most general sense, formalism works in architecture as it does (or doesnt) in other
artforms. Thus, architectural formalism suggests that the sum total of aesthetic properties of
an architectural object are or arise from formal properties, such that our aesthetic judgments
are warranted based on experience and assessment of just those properties. As architectural
objects are typically non-representational and designed with manipulation and relation of
forms as a primary task, it is natural that their formal properties be seen as playing a central
role in our aesthetic appreciation of them. The question posed to the traditional (hard)
formalist is whether those properties are unique or at least dominant drivers of aesthetic
properties and judgment, a question underlined by important roles of history, styles, and
other contexts in our grasp of the architectural enterprise and individual architectural objects.
Our aesthetic judgment of I. M. Peis Louvre Pyramids is surely to some degree in reaction
to their pure form butfor the aware spectatorperhaps just as much in reaction to their
relationship to historical context (the Giza pyramids as emblematic of pyramidal form in
architecture, and of monumental architecture altogether) or setting (in contrast to the ornate
neo-Baroque Louvre buildings that surround them, but in keeping with traditional French
emphasis on geometric form in design).
Variants of architectural formalism take formal properties as the properties of (or arising
from) the material or physical properties of built structures (as consonant with concretism),
or as the properties of (or arising from) the total properties specified by a set of formal
parameters we identify with the architectural object (as consonant with abstractism). Further
architectural strains are characterized by moderation (per Zangwill 2001), suggesting that
some architectural objects are best understood by appealing to their formal properties, others
not; or by assimilation of canonically non-formal properties to a formalist scheme (in the
manner of Levinsons indicated structures; see S. Fisher 2000b); or by a mereological
view wherein some parts of a given architectural object may be best understood and judged

by their formal properties, others not. For the merelogico-formalist, it might count in favor of
considering such parts as independent architectural objects that we can judge those parts on a
formal basis alone.
Formalism appears in some traditional architectural theories as a normative practical or
critical guideline, namely, that our best design thinking takes as central an architectural
objects shape, color, and other formal elements. Other, non-formal aspects of an
architectural object are discounted as contributing to its success. Mitrovic (2011, 2013)
embraces a normative formalist approach to criticism, on the grounds that the deeply visual
nature of much cognition militates against basing appreciation or evaluation of architectural
objects exclusively or primarily on features we understand through non-visual means (such
as context or history provide).

5.2 Anti-Formalism and Functional Beauty

The anti-formalist traditionally focuses on the importance to aesthetic judgment about nonformal properties, including historical context; other, categorial forms of context (Walton
1970); or non-cognitive properties. As an architectural application would have it, we likely
judge Jeffersons University of Virginia campus as stately or dignified or evocative of
democratic ideals because of the neo-classical design, the campus place in histories of
American architecture and university architecture, and its continuous rededication through
the everyday functioning of an enduring, living university. None of this judgment appears to
have particular roots in forms Jefferson deployed, except as befit a neo-classical style
which style may be best grasped in historicist terms.
Aside from historicism, a principal variant of architectural anti-formalism derives from
functional beauty theory, which has its roots in (a) a late modern tradition of judging an
object beautiful if fit for its intended function (Parsons and Carlson (2008) find this tradition
in Berkeley's Alciphron(1732) and Hume's related suggestion (Treatise (1739-40)) that
beauty of artifacts consists in their appearing to bear utility), and (b) Kants proposal that
architecture is an artform capable of generating dependent beauty. (In the latter case, beauty
stands in relation to concepts with which we associate architectural objects, which for such
objects are typically the ends towards which they are created.) One modern version proposes
gauging the beauty of a designed object by reference to designers intent in crafting a
functional solution; for S. Davies (2006), where an object displays functional beauty,
aesthetic considerations and the objects primary function each act to shape the
other. Per Parsons and Carlson (2008), the problem with such intentionalist accounts in
architecture (or elsewhere where functional beauty pertains) is that functions change. To
work around this difficulty, they suggest, we need a theory focused on proper functions for
the artifacts in question. This view is modeled on a selected effects account of biological
functions, as translated into a marketplace-driven scheme, where evolution of design
solutions is driven by demand over time.
Functional beauty faces several challenges. Even in their advocacy, Parsons and Carlson
caution against the suggestion that function solely determines form, as that would neglect
other features of artifacts not possibly highlighted by their functions. Such features include

cultural significance or aspects of non-dependent beauty as may be found in, for example,
architectural ornament. (In Davies picture, there is no such neglect because the functioning
of artifactsincluding art and architectural objectsmay have a cultural, spiritual, or
otherwise non-mechanical cast.) In the architectural realm, another challenge is posed by
ruins, which may be beautiful but have no functions. To the charge that these represent
counterexamples to functional beauty theory, one tack is to answer that if ruins represent
architectural objects, they are dysfunctional and their beauty is manifest in non-functional
ways (Parsons and Carlson). Functional beauty theory is saved on the whole but not as
universally characteristic of architectural objects.
A further challenge casts doubt on seeing functional beauty as the only variant of dependent
beauty, or beauty as the sole aesthetic valence of interest to a viable notion of dependent
aesthetic properties. In an architectural vein, those variants may include spiritual, emotional,
or conceptual frameworks we bring to our grasp of such built structures as houses of
worship, memorials, or triumphal arches. We can tell functional stories about these sorts of
structures in sociological or psychological analyses but not (or not only), as functional
beauty accounts would have it, in terms of their mechanical or system-wise functioning.
Looking beyond functional beautyor more broadly, dependent beautyaccounts of
architecture, an inclusivist will seek the thread that ties together architectural objects with
aesthetic properties of all description, be they functional, otherwise dependent, or freely
(independently) endowed with beauty or other such properties. Thus, a modernist gas station
and a Tschumi folie may share an elegance unrelated to functional ascription or the lack
thereof. A general theory of architectural objects, along inclusivist lines, suggests at least a
moderate formalism.

Is beauty an essential
consideration in architecture?
The Question

By Ron Arad RA and Sam Jacob

Published 14 November 2014

Ron Arad RA and Sam Jacob

discuss whether considerations of
beauty are valuable in architecture,
or whether they detract from more
important issues.

From the Winter 2014 issue of RA Magazine, issued quarterly to Friends of

the RA.

Yes...
The word beautiful isnt old-fashioned.
Its a word we use every day to describe what we like, and thats as true for architects
as everyone else. You might not think so, but every architect aspires to make
something beautiful, to create some type of visual delight in their work. If you dont
enjoy their buildings, its not because the architect is evil and doesnt want to make
something good its just that they have a different appreciation of beauty from you.
Beauty is impossible to define: dont believe anybody who tells you they know what
beauty is. Beauty is up to us as individuals. For example, our proposal for Canadas
National Holocaust Monument consisted of narrow passageways formed by concrete
walls. The experience of walking through them could have been described as scary, or
upsetting, or ugly, or maybe beautiful, depending on the person.

I find stubbed-out cigarette butts beautiful, for example; Im working on a large

sculpture for the centre of Toronto in which Im recreating the shape of them by
crunching up large pillars of reflective stainless steel. I hope that other people will
find the distorted reflections as beautiful as I find them. Thoughts on beauty may
change for example, I used to think that old American cars were ugly, with their
superfluous fins and so on: now I can clearly see the beauty in them.

When an architectural problem

is solved by an idea, that idea is
always there to be seen in the
building the idea has a visual
manifestation that is beautiful.
Ron Arad RA

I dont believe in the existence of a golden section in architecture, or any

slogans such as form should follow function or good design is good business, or
any other given prescription of what makes a building, or anything, beautiful. It is all
about culture, context, personal history, acquired taste and, most importantly, ideas.
When an architectural problem is solved by an idea, that idea is always there to be
seen in the building the idea has a visual manifestation that is beautiful.
Behind every beautiful building there is a bright, intelligent, cultured client. They take
the importance of beauty for granted and, if we argue with a client about a project, it is
not usually about the visual side of things arguments are instead about price per
metre, or about how many cubic metres they can squeeze in here or there.
But sometimes clients are even more insistent on what they think is beautiful than
architects. A case in point is the Design Museum in Holon, which opened in 2010. In
our original presentation the six ribbons of Cor-Ten steel that wrap around the
building were shown with gradation in colour, which the client thought was beautiful.
Later we discovered that Cor-Ten, whatever its initial colour, naturally turns a dark

chocolate-brown colour once left in the Middle Eastern sun. I was willing to move the
goalposts and accept it, trying to explain to the client that we should allow the CorTen to do whatever it does. But the client insisted on the gradation that we had already
showed them. We worked with the Polytechnic of Milan to research a method that
would produce the lasting gradation of colours that the client wanted. So in a way I
lost the argument, but I was pleased that I lost.
The profession that doesnt use the language of beauty is town planning. Some
beautiful projects dont get planning permission. Amiga House, which I designed in
the 1990s for Londons Courtney Avenue, is one painful example it was pretty
degrading to discuss beauty with Haringey Council. If they abolished planning
tomorrow the world would be a better place, Im sure. Architects have to sell their
ideas and reasons to planners on committees who, although less educated and
qualified than them, have the last say, but I take my hat off to any enlightened,
idealistic planners out there who think about beauty I hope there will be more of
them in the future.

No...
Everyone, said Arsne Wenger in response to an Alex Ferguson jibe, thinks they
have the most beautiful wife at home. Despite his macho sentiment the Arsenal
manager pinpoints the paradox at the heart of any collective idea of beauty. What on
earth is it? And who gets to decide what it is? Obviously, as Wenger suggests, its
relative. But if beauty is relative what exactly is it relative to?
Well, I would argue first that beauty is not relative to something natural, deep and
authentic. None of that mystic individualism for me. No, there are reasons why we
find things beautiful or ugly. Or, for that matter, beautiful-ugly.
And that reason is culture. Both our individual cultural psychology forged through our
own experience and the culture of the epoch we belong to. Beauty, if its anything, is a
psycho-cultural phenomenon. After all, its an idea (or a sensation) that is not inherent
to a thing but a qualitative alue thrust upon the object of our gaze.
From Rubenesque figures of the 17th century to size zero of the 21st century, what we
decide is beautiful changes according to circumstance. Beauty if it really exists

isnt static. It took hard graft at the cultural coal face to force us to see the beauty in,
say, the Lake District (thanks to Wordsworth). Or in a three-chord raucous cacophony
(thanks to punk or Stockhausen, depending on your take). The same goes for many
of the other things we assume to be beautiful. All these beautiful things were once
ugly.

When people use the word

beauty in design they are seeking
refuge from the difficulties of
modern life.
Sam Jacob

The history of modern art is often a history of the desire to smash through the
prevailing idea of beauty. In the early 20th century the aesthetic niceties of the 19th
century were shattered by new kinds of aesthetic drawn from sources such as the
primitive (African masks), the industrial (grain silos) and the everyday (urinals). This
process of aesthetic revolution hasnt stopped since. The beauty carousel revolves like
this: first shock, then acceptance, then mainstream before it becomes the thing to rebel
against.
Beauty is, Im arguing, an acceptable way of talking about something unacceptable in
polite conversation: taste. We dont like to talk too much about taste because its a
word replete with political issues. It drips with associations of value, class and money.
Using the word beauty allows us to frame the very same subject in a way that avoids
these uncomfortable issues. It suggests higher, more authentic, objective and timeless
qualities to the worldly concerns of taste. Which is, quite frankly, both disingenuous
and a dereliction of duty for any creative practitioner.
When people use the word beauty in design they are seeking refuge from all of the
difficulties of modern life all of its doubts, fears and challenges. They are attempting
to place themselves outside of the machinations of taste and beyond the vagaries of
fashion (which is also a no-go word, especially in architectural circles). But avoidance

only serves to construct a refuge of arch-conservatism, aligning oneself with the status
quo. Far better, Id argue, to engage with ugly and awkward issues. Far better to
recognise architecture and design as an aesthetic-cultural battleground of political
issues. After all, its the struggle with the offensive, the ugly, the unseen and
unappreciated that has given us much of what we find beautiful today. It is ironic that
its the things that embody this tradition rather than the things that have pursued an
accepted idea of beauty that have stood the test of time. Think of post-war Brutalist
architecture, which is currently enjoying a revival after years of vilification, or the
grotesque Victoriana that was the target of 1960s wrecking balls. Driven by a desire
to challenge myths of accepted beauty, these buildings have become, in time,
beautiful. In other words its the monstrous carbuncles, not society beauties, that will
inherit the earth.
Ron Arad RA is an architect, designer and artist.
Sam Jacob is an architect, writer and curator.
These are just two opinions in this debate. What do you think?

Beauty in Buildings: What's the

Use?
March 15, 2011

When the Modernists declared that form follows function, did they really
intend for the built environment to look so ... dreary? Maybe beauty is an
essential building function--not just something for the interior designer to
work out at the end.

The entryway to the St. Mary's Cathedral in Tokyo features concrete, glass, and steel,
and gives a wooden nod to traditional church doors. Is it beautiful? Does it look alive? Click
photo to enlarge.

As Amelia Amon of Alt.Technica begins her presentation on "beautility"

at BuildingEnergy, I become uncomfortably aware of her outfit. She looks like a fresh
spring flower. I look like a person who chose a barely passable skirt and did a bad job of
ironing it.
I soon forgot my fashion failings as the talk began. After a long day of having ROI graphs
and wind speed/altitude charts flashed in front of me without quite enough time to
process each one, immersing myself in a bit of philosophy felt like lying back in a warm
bubble bath. Aaaaah. Was this really work?
The Work of Beauty
Well, that's just it. We tend to think of aesthetics as the "play" part of the building: an
afterthought, like the extra ring I'd put on my finger to spruce myself up a bit that
morning. A matter of personal taste. A chance to go on a fun shopping trip after all the
real work is done.
But can beauty do work too?
Amon defines beauty as a natural organizing principle, and believes that "beauty is a
function in itself" and "a sign of connectedness" to the natural world. Her fellow
presenter, Justin Good (a lecturer and the executive director of The Sanctuary at
Shepardfields), defines beauty as "the perception of wholeness." It's not really in the eye
of the beholder or just a matter of taste, he maintains: the vast majority of people agree
on which things are beautiful and which are not.
The entryway to the cathedral at Chartres, a "boring" building, according to Peter
Eisenman. This doorway is certainly busy. Is it doing any work? Click photo to enlarge.

Beauty and Biophilia

He explained some of the work of Christopher Alexander, including the idea that a truly
sustainable building system not only has internal coherence but also harmonizes with
the systems around it and all the systems within it. According to Good, when we talk
about the life of a building or the life of a neighborhood, that is "not a metaphor." A
building really can be alive. As defined by the two presenters, beauty is closely related
to biophilia.

Alexander's is a theory of aesthetics, metaphysics, and ethics, all rolled into a rather
eccentric philosophy of architecture. His theories have been applied liberally by
computer programmers--and hardly at all by architects. "This is off the conceptual chart
in Modernism," said Good. That was the understatement of the day.
Common Sense for Everyday Architecture?
And yet, it all makes so much sense. Good showed us many photos juxtaposing
contemporary buildings with more antiquated ones. The entryway of a cathedral
compared with the entryway of a 1950s post office, for example. Every last one of us
knew instantly which door we preferred if we wanted to get out of a thunderstorm. How
have these apparently universal emotional responses been stripped out of everyday
architecture? After all, don't most people become architects because they are good at
both math and art? What happens to the art bit after you graduate?
Aside from unwittingly helping bring object-oriented computer programming into
being, Alexander is also known for a 1982 debatehe had with postmodernist Peter
Eisenman. People seem to remember this debate mainly because Alexander dropped the
f-bomb. Twice. My curiosity piqued by Good's talk, I read a transcript of the debate and
discovered that Eisenman thinks the cathedral at Chartres is "boring." Huh.
The Cutting Edge Isn't a Nice Place to Sit
More intriguingly, Eisenman expresses the belief (he pretends his belief is just his own
personal taste, but no one is fooled) that architecture should make people
uncomfortable. That it should reflect our alienation from the natural world rather than
providing a respite from alienation. (So much for my warm bubble bath, or at least its
architectural equivalent.) Alexander believes the opposite, and does not try to pass it off
as a groundless personal opinion. He is unabashedly prescriptive. Interesting, since in
the end I think Alexander's system of thought is much more open-minded than
Eisenman's.
But I am a writer, not an architect. I am new to BuildingGreen, and my study of
postmodernism in school was all about deconstruction--the kind you do to literary texts,
not buildings. So I'm curious how architects react to the idea that beauty is an essential
building function--and also to the idea that beauty as a primary function of architecture
has been mostly stripped out of contemporary design. Is that an overstatement?
Maybe Beauty Isn't Natural
Perhaps it is really just a matter of taste. Do beauty and biophilia really have to map so
closely? Maybe the 1950s post office--or, to be more fair, the St. Mary's Cathedral
pictured above--is just as attractive as Chartres, and we're only clinging to some
outdated Romantic concept of beauty. On the other hand, there is a lot of research

showing the tangible, measurable advantages of biophilic buildings, including a recent

study about improved health outcomes in hospitals that allow better access to sunlight
and the outdoors.
How does beauty come into your everyday work? Do you think the built environment
should foster a connection to nature? Or should it reflect our alienation from nature, as
a reminder that all is not well with the world? Or perhaps you think beauty and nature
are not inherently connected. Feel free to share your thoughts in the comments.

Printer-friendly version

COMMENTS

Paula, I think you bring up a

Permalink Submitted by on Fri 3/18/2011 - 05:54

Paula, I think you bring up a great point with St. Mary's photo: "Does it look alive?" It
certainly doesn't. It doesn't even look cohesive. I think the majority of us appreciate
spaces that feel alive/mimic the natural world in some way - patterns, textures,
proportions, and shapes, to name a few.
As a feng shui consultant, I have learned how ancient philosophies and practices still
resonate in today's world, perhaps even more so. Research proves that our
environments impact our behavior and well-being. Inhabiting spaces that are built
WITH nature creates a much more fulfilling experience.

Log in or register to post comments

In my home, I certainly want

Permalink Submitted by on Wed 3/16/2011 - 04:28

In my home, I certainly want to foster a feeling of comfort and safety, and offer
respite and shelter for my family. I am certain that most people do not need to be
challenged or reminded of our struggles with our environment when the day is almost
over, at least within the context of their home's design. As a study, such a home may

validity; but as a residence, what could be less sustainable than constructing a home
that no one will enjoy living in? Public spaces, outdoors or in, would be a different
discussion, I think.

Log in or register to post comments

Such a fruitful post really h

Permalink Submitted by on Wed 3/16/2011 - 17:45

Such a fruitful post really helps me to plan my house.

Your post is a source where engineering should read; you give a good advice here
through sampling the late works of different well known people, you really made a
good style in writing and sharing useful information.

Log in or register to post comments

Thank you all for your insigh

Permalink Submitted by Paula Melton on Mon 3/21/2011 - 10:34

Thank you all for your insightful and thought-provoking comments.

Bill, perhaps Modernism has been used as an excuse in some cases for making cheap,
ugly buildings. But it does seem to me that the more iconic Modernist buildings have
an appealing aesthetic, even though they do not normally follow natural forms or
incorporate biophilia. I guess part of the question is whether the word "beauty" can be
used in this limited way.
The questions discussed in the talk were at a pretty abstract level, not really making
claims about particular buildings or design choicesmore about the philosophical
assumptions that underlie design choices, and how those assumptions affect the
spaces we build and the occupants of those spaces. Do you think contemporary design
has moved away from the stricter Modernist philosophical assumptions? If so, where
has it gone, and why? What are the new assumptions being made?

Log in or register to post comments

Beauty certainly need not be

Permalink Submitted by on Fri 3/18/2011 - 02:49

Beauty certainly need not be left to the end. However a building must function to
exist. A good Architect can consider both, and knows when each one should be
prioritized.

Log in or register to post comments

I am an architect and would l

Permalink Submitted by on Sat 3/19/2011 - 12:30

I am an architect and would love to give you my opinion.

Beauty is an essential building function -- It certainly should be. I agree with
Alexander that buildings should make you feel comfortable. If we are to make the
correlation between buildings and nature, I think many would agree of the inherent
beauty in nature. Could/should/ought our buildings reflect that same beauty? Nature
is so very functional, yet beautiful too.
Beauty as a primary function stripped out of contemporary design -- This might be an
overstatement. There is still quite a bit of beautiful architecture out there. Have we
as architects maybe gotten lazy or lax? Definitely. Is it across the board? No. There are
still those out there trying to meld beauty and functionality.
Bill Randall, Architect, LEED AP, cSBA
thesimpleHOUSE
living a simple, sustainable lifestyle

Log in or register to post comments

Beauty is necessary
Permalink Submitted by W. Rowe on Mon 6/18/2012 - 11:51

When I speak of greener buildings, I always make the case that the space, the
building, the finishes need to be beautiful. Beauty is not merely visual, but also
acoustic, kinesthetic and more. The space needs to feel good, the finishes need to be
attractive, comfortable, supporting of health and they need to be durable. If beauty
is left out, the space or place will not be cared for, will not win the hearts of the
users and will be neglected or replaced - neither is a good deal for sustainability. If
the space or place is loved, supports the users, looks good even after years of hard
use, cleans well and appeals to the senses (all of them), and functions well it will be
a durable and a long-lasting, sustained place.Beauty is necessary in the equation; part
of the design, not an afterthought and not the driver.

Log in or register to post comments

Architectural Beauty Today

Permalink Submitted by Gordon Northan on Mon 6/18/2012 - 13:24

This is a good topic to consider as the times are tough. Briefy, most players in the
built environment are not advocates of beauty except as a side issue. They don't like
ugly. But financial forces, Building Contractors, Real Estate Brokers and some clients
do not place a value on beauty beyond "curb appeal". Lots of that please but keep the
costs down.As an Architect of 35 years my idea of beauty is that it comes from the
core principals of spacial organization, materials selections, light and shade, and even
symbolism in forms. Human ritual and contemporary contexts can be developed in
beautiful ways. It is easy to know when a space is comfortable and pleasant when you
are there. That is a kind of beauty. It is easy to know when a structure is interesting
to look at and attracts the viewer with meaning and scale. That is an environmental
integration of the best kind.To the extent that all parts of the built
environment impact the "natural" world for better or worse, they matter more than
we know. It is our duty to sing as beautifully as we can amidst the fog of
developments that are built without a beauty component and thereby humanize a
brutal process.

Log in or register to post comments

Beauty and Happiness - One

Permalink Submitted by Ann Walters on Mon 6/18/2012 - 23:08

Beauty and Happiness - One of the books on this topic that I have really enjoyed for
its content as well as its literary feel is Alain de Botton's "The Architecture of
Happiness".

Log in or register to post comments

go beyond styles
Permalink Submitted by Robert Swinburne on Tue 6/19/2012 - 13:26

This is something I grapple with a lot as an architect. My flippant answer is to look

beyond style or era and simply ask how the building or the space or the detail feels.
Beautiful is only one option here. The Holocaust museum in DC is not necessarily
beautiful but it manages to capture some very powerful emotional content. I have

been in some modernist buildings that have made me feel gloriously uplifted. I have
felt the same in some very old buildings. I think how we repond emotionally to
architecture is paramount even if that emotion is somewhat nostalgic. Even if the
space is simply a bathroom. Even if the emotion is not joyous.

Log in or register to post comments

Vernacular vs Architectural
Permalink Submitted by Steve King on Thu 6/21/2012 - 16:14

Great thread to start as a traditional farmers son from Dorset in the UK, this is why I
started designing and making my own timber frame buildings. Predominantly
architects look at vernacular local buildings and forget that that "chocolate box
cottage" was built using readilyavailable local renewable materials, out of necessity
from not having the energy for centralised local production or for material
conversion. This developed local styles where form followed function and developed
character and beauty. Local self build could assist in reestablishing this vernacular
paradigm and revitalise neighbourhoods and artisan skills. greenwoodfutures.co.uk

Log in or register to post comments

Beauty is Required
Permalink Submitted by Boston Architectural College on Sun 3/17/2013 - 21:16

I often wonder what the world would be like if modern architects had followed
someone like Gaudi instead of LeCorbusier or Brutalism. The conceit and desire to
make the built world emulate machines rather than nature has created barren, ugly
environments, made architecture irrelevant to most people and has left nature in
crisis.Beauty like nature is a primary need, it should be part and parcel of any design
and should be woven into the design as much a function. Function alone, makes you
wish you were dead.Valli BAC Sustainable Design student

Log in or register to post comments