Functionalism, in architecture, is the principle by which the form of buildings should only be the expression of their use or function. But this formulation is not so obvious and generates controversy within the profession, especially in relation to the Modern Movement. Its influence was particularly notable in the Netherlands, the Soviet Union, Germany and Czechoslovakia.[1].
The origins of architectural functionalism can be traced back to the Roman architect Vitruvius, where the triad: utilitas (comfort or usefulness) goes hand in hand with venustas (beauty) and firmitas (solidity), as one of the three goals of classical architecture.[2].
History of functionalism
In the early years of the century, Chicago School architect Louis Sullivan popularized the motto form always follows function to reflect his belief that a building's size, mass, distribution of space and other characteristics should be decided solely by its function. This implies that if the functional aspects are satisfied, architectural beauty will emerge naturally.
However, Sullivan's creed is often seen as ironic in light of his extensive use of intricate ornaments, contrary to the common belief among functionalist architects that ornaments have no function. The creed also does not clarify what functions it refers to. The architect of an apartment building, for example, can easily disagree with the owners about what the building should look like, and both also disagree with future tenants. However, the concept that “form follows function” expresses a significant and enduring idea.
The roots of modern architecture lie in the work of Swiss architect Le Corbusier and German architect Mies van der Rohe. Both were functionalists at least to the extent that their buildings were radical simplifications of earlier styles. In 1923 Mies van der Rohe was working at the Bauhaus School (Weimar, Germany), and had begun his career of producing radically simplified structures and, animated by a love of detail, achieved Sullivan's goal of inherent architectural beauty. Corbusier famously said “the house is the machine in which to live” in his book Vers une architecture published in 1923. This book was, and still is, very influential, and the first works he did, such as the “Villa Savoye” in Poissy, France, are considered prototypes of functionalism.
Peter Eisenman (Theorist)
Introduction
Functionalism, in architecture, is the principle by which the form of buildings should only be the expression of their use or function. But this formulation is not so obvious and generates controversy within the profession, especially in relation to the Modern Movement. Its influence was particularly notable in the Netherlands, the Soviet Union, Germany and Czechoslovakia.[1].
The origins of architectural functionalism can be traced back to the Roman architect Vitruvius, where the triad: utilitas (comfort or usefulness) goes hand in hand with venustas (beauty) and firmitas (solidity), as one of the three goals of classical architecture.[2].
History of functionalism
In the early years of the century, Chicago School architect Louis Sullivan popularized the motto form always follows function to reflect his belief that a building's size, mass, distribution of space and other characteristics should be decided solely by its function. This implies that if the functional aspects are satisfied, architectural beauty will emerge naturally.
However, Sullivan's creed is often seen as ironic in light of his extensive use of intricate ornaments, contrary to the common belief among functionalist architects that ornaments have no function. The creed also does not clarify what functions it refers to. The architect of an apartment building, for example, can easily disagree with the owners about what the building should look like, and both also disagree with future tenants. However, the concept that “form follows function” expresses a significant and enduring idea.
The roots of modern architecture lie in the work of Swiss architect Le Corbusier and German architect Mies van der Rohe. Both were functionalists at least to the extent that their buildings were radical simplifications of earlier styles. In 1923 Mies van der Rohe was working at the Bauhaus School (Weimar, Germany), and had begun his career of producing radically simplified structures and, animated by a love of detail, achieved Sullivan's goal of inherent architectural beauty. Corbusier famously said “the house is the machine in which to live” in his book published in 1923. This book was, and still is, very influential, and the first works he did, such as the “Villa Savoye” in Poissy, France, are considered prototypes of functionalism.
In the mid-1930s, functionalism began to be discussed as an aesthetic approach, rather than as a matter of design integrity. The idea of functionalism was combined with the lack of ornamentation, which is a very different issue. It became a pejorative term associated with the most wasteful and brutal ways of covering a space, such as cheap and commercial ways of making buildings, finally used, for example, in the critical academicism of Buckminster Fuller's geodesic domes, simply as a synonym for "gauche."
In the 1970s, the preeminent and influential American architect Philip Johnson argued that the profession has no functional responsibility whatsoever, and this is one of the views that prevails today. Johnson said "I don't know where the shapes come from, but they have nothing to do with the functional or sociological aspects of our architecture." The position of “postmodern” architect Peter Eisenman is based on a hostile user theorist and is even more extreme “I don't do the function”. The best-known architects in the West, such as Frank Gehry, Steven Holl, Richard Meier and Ieoh Ming Pei, see themselves primarily as artists, with some secondary responsibility for making their buildings functional for clients or users.
Functionalism and aesthetics are often framed as mutually exclusive options, when in fact there are architects, such as Will Bruder), James Polshek, and Ken Yeang who seek to satisfy Vitruvius' three goals.
[1].
References
[1] ↑ Rogers, Elizabeth Barlow. Landscape Design: A Cultural and Architectural History. New York: Abrams, 2001. p.23, 454-5.
In the mid-1930s, functionalism began to be discussed as an aesthetic approach, rather than as a matter of design integrity. The idea of functionalism was combined with the lack of ornamentation, which is a very different issue. It became a pejorative term associated with the most wasteful and brutal ways of covering a space, such as cheap and commercial ways of making buildings, finally used, for example, in the critical academicism of Buckminster Fuller's geodesic domes, simply as a synonym for "gauche."
In the 1970s, the preeminent and influential American architect Philip Johnson argued that the profession has no functional responsibility whatsoever, and this is one of the views that prevails today. Johnson said "I don't know where the shapes come from, but they have nothing to do with the functional or sociological aspects of our architecture." The position of “postmodern” architect Peter Eisenman is based on a hostile user theorist and is even more extreme “I don't do the function”. The best-known architects in the West, such as Frank Gehry, Steven Holl, Richard Meier and Ieoh Ming Pei, see themselves primarily as artists, with some secondary responsibility for making their buildings functional for clients or users.
Functionalism and aesthetics are often framed as mutually exclusive options, when in fact there are architects, such as Will Bruder), James Polshek, and Ken Yeang who seek to satisfy Vitruvius' three goals.
[1].
References
[1] ↑ Rogers, Elizabeth Barlow. Landscape Design: A Cultural and Architectural History. New York: Abrams, 2001. p.23, 454-5.