B .function + form = style.
Let's talk about design styles.
It is believed that style formation in design has its own characteristics. One of them is the transience of style trends in design compared to art and architecture. Of course. We know so many styles in architecture and art that have been formed over centuries! Not only is the design more youthful, it also appeared at a time when styles began to change themselves in a few decades, or even just 5-10 years. The same modern costume design established the seasonal cyclical nature of changing tastes. Or so called styling consumer goods. The series of successive design styles resembles a motley ribbon of constantly changing images of the history of industrial design.
In such confusion, especially when you plunge into this information headlong at once, for some time it seems that it is somewhat problematic to understand it. After some time you realize that it is still possible. A logical feeling arises. that there must be some logic in the development of design styles, their continuity, some commonalities.
Certainly. Only styles that have already been established and have passed into the section of historicism can be classified with a greater degree of objectivity.
However, an interesting pattern emerged. WE know that design is about function and form. Design styles can be viewed through the interaction of these two elements. And then all this motley ribbon folds into even circles. The development of styles begins to seem like a constant collaboration
two aspects: the form and function of the object. The first one is nothing more than a carrier
artistic beginning - what we call style. And without the second component, the object ceases to be an object of design, since design must first of all be functional.
And now we have only 4 directions for the development of design styles, which are easier to compare, consider, and contrast, since within each such group it is already possible to identify common features.
Based on the nature of the interaction of forms and the function of an object, four main directions, artistic and stylistic trends in the industrial formation of the twentieth century can be distinguished:
Modernism: the form of an object follows its function - this is what Louis Sullivan, a good American man, once said. Since then, everyone who somehow comes across the history of design certainly knows him and these words.
Organic Design: the form and function of the object merge into a single whole - the most wonderful groups of styles, where everything is so natural and unified that thoughts about the harmonization of nature, technology, man and materials become fully realized.
Postmodernism: the form of an object does not follow its function. When a person gets tired of designing functional forms, a game of design, sur-design and other conceptualism, humor in design, etc. begins.
Post-industrialism: form follows ergonomics. This is where the fun begins. Big games with modern technologies.
Beauty in design is a consequence of purity of function.
Thesis " form follows function" is interpreted in one of two ways: descriptive and recommendatory. Descriptive Interpretation: Beauty results from purity of function and the absence of excessive decorative elements. Recommendation interpretation: In design, function should be given first place, and beauty second. Statement " form follows function" was approved and spread by modernist architects at the beginning of the 20th century, and since then this principle has been used in other fields.
The descriptive interpretation, which states that beauty results from purity of function, was initially based on the belief that in nature form follows the function. However, this belief is erroneous, since in nature function follows form, if at all. Genetic models are inherited and each organism determines how to use the inherited form. Despite this, the functional aspects of design are less subjective than those related to aesthetics and, therefore, the choice of function as a criterion for assessing the aesthetics (i.e. form) of a design is more objective than alternative methods. The result is designs that are untimely and enduring, often perceived by the public as simple and uninteresting.
The prescriptive interpretation, which suggests that the designer should first consider the function of the design and only then consider the aesthetics of the form, is likely to follow from the descriptive interpretation. Using the principle form follows function" as a design recommendation or guide forces the designer to focus on solving a question that was posed incorrectly in the first place. The question is not which aspects of form can be sacrificed for function, but which aspects of design are critical to its success. Success criteria, rather than blind adherence to form or function, should be the driving force in developing specifications. If time and resources are limited, then when making a compromise decision, everything should be done so as not to reduce (or minimally reduce) the probability of success, since success is the determining factor in developing the design. In some circumstances, you may sacrifice the aesthetics of the design; in others, you may sacrifice functionality. Which factor is the most important? The one that best meets consumer needs.
Use a descriptive interpretation of the thesis " form follows function" to consider aesthetics in design, but do not follow the advisory interpretation as a strict rule. When making decisions, focus on the relative importance of all aspects of the design (form and function), but the main criterion is success.
Good design requires defining what the criteria for success are. If we assume that accuracy is such a criterion for a watch, it is best to choose an electronic dial. If you focus on form (that is, put aesthetics first), then preference should be given to an analog dial. In all cases, the success criterion is the determining factor in the choice between form and function and in setting design requirements.
An example of a successful combination of form and function is the new Humvee. The car was developed for military purposes and redesigned into the commercial Hummer H1 and H2 models. Each of them has a unique and compelling shape - the result of combining pure functionality and minimal embellishment.
World famous American architect Louis Sullivan said: “Form follows function.” With these words he described the tendency to relegate decorative elements to the background. This idea was embodied in the most vivid form by Adolf Loos in his works. He argued: “Embellishment is a crime.”
These two principles formed the basis of industrial aesthetics in construction, according to which the artistic and aesthetic views of the architect should not influence the meaning of the building. This approach influenced the development of new types of structures, including skyscrapers.
Later these ideas became the basislying in such a new movement as functionalism. Construction of buildings in a new direction (for example, the samee most skyscrapers) contributed to the widespread production of concrete, steel and glass. The result was a simple façade with curtain panels.
The firstborn of the functional approach were the high-rise buildings of L. Sullivan. But the most significant achievements in functionalism were achieved by builders in Western Europe and Russia in the 1920s. They were all united by the desire for industrialization, scientific rationalization and adherence to the principle of “form follows function.”
Russian constructivism pursued the idea of combining art and everyday life. The German Bauhaus sought to combine industrial production with quality design. The Dutch "De Stijl" was an attempt to reflect Cubism in architecture.
The most influential follower of functionalist ideas was Le Corbusier. His works and ideas significantly influenced several generations of architects. And the established laws of the industrial house (flat roof, house on supports, strip glazing, etc.) are still used to this day.
The full implementation of these ideas took place in a “living unit” - a house in Marseille. Free layout, rational sun protection, colorful accents. All these components are functional, but at the same time simple and interesting. 
Similar houses began to appear throughout France and not all people approved of it. Now the architect Le Corbusier is accused of disfiguring Northern Europe - not everyone likes high-rise, faceless buildings.
Although there is an opinion that adherents of the “living unit” ideas simply did not correctly interpret his ideas.
Functionalism in the USA
After the devastation of 1871 Because of the fire in Chicago, the construction of multi-story office buildings, which were based on a metal frame, began.
These structures became the prototype of skyscrapers. Their features were the absence of cladding of the frame with solid walls, wide window openings, and an almost complete rejection of decor.
The beginning of the construction of such buildings served as the formation of the “Chicago School”.
The increase in land values led to the emergence of a new type of building - skyscrapers. And the invention of the elevator and frame construction contributed to the growth of such structures upward.
Refutation of the aphorism “Form follows function”
Today there is such a thing as building reuse.
Demolishing an old building that no longer fulfills its functions or is in a dilapidated state turns out to be easier than coming up with a new purpose for it. But what if the building has high cultural value, for example, is included in the cultural heritage list? Then it is more appropriate to find a new use for it than to replace it with another.
With this approach, different options are possible: restoration, reconstruction, adding new infrastructure. In any case, it's worth checking outto join a company for which the reconstruction and construction of buildings is already a common thing.
The most famous example of reuse lz o The project is the radical restructuring of a hydroelectric power station in London's Bankside into the Tate Modern gallery. During this project there wasA complete redevelopment has been carried out.
In such cases - when the building is used for other purposes - the maxim "form follows function" is rebutted. For example, a power plant is used as an art gallery.
Virtual skulls: Some human ancestors had the appearance of “nutcrackers”. People have big heads, but no muzzle - everyone knows this. But what is less known is that the human ancestors Australopithecus, who lived two to four million years ago, had a small skull, snout and very large teeth. Why did primitive man need them?
Because shape and mode of action are related, paleoanthropologists, specialists in the field of human evolution, suggest that this head shape is largely a consequence of the stresses on the front of the skull that were caused by chewing food. A group of Austrian and American scientists led by David Strait (University at Albany, USA) and Gerhard Weber (University of Vienna) conducted a series of experiments on biomechanical modeling of load distribution in the skull of the primitive man Australopithecus africanus and compared them with the loads in the skull of the cynomolgus macaque Macacafascicularis.
This was made possible by the use of “finite element analysis” (FEA), a computer technology that allows scientists to break down geometric bodies into small parallelepipeds and tetrahedrons and calculate them individually. But first it was necessary to create extremely accurate three-dimensional models of skulls.
At the University of Vienna, where one of the leading centers of virtual anthropology is located, the skull of a primitive man was “composed” of two incomplete specimens from South Africa and supplemented with fossil fragments of Sts 5 and Sts 52. American scientists experimentally determined different types of loads on the skull of modern monkeys during gnawing or chewing food, as well as the design features of the skull bones.
As a result of calculations, an American-Austrian group of scientists was able to obtain an idea of the application of force during the chewing process in the skulls of Australopithecus africanus and Macacafascicularis. In macaques, the long, shell-shaped snout takes on the mechanical load. In australopithecines, the chewing force from the upper small molars was transmitted directly to the palatine processes of the upper jaw, and these processes, located on both sides of the nose, protruded in the more flat-faced australopithecines in the form of cranial buttresses.
What kind of food was it that created such a load on the premolar teeth of Australopithecus africanus? “Most likely, these were large objects,” believes David Strait, “which, due to their size, could not advance in the mouth to the edges of the molars, and were also too hard for the incisors.”
The hypothesis of paleoanthropologists is this: this type of hominid ate nuts and seeds in hard shells, the diameter of which reached five centimeters; at least this was their diet during the barren season.
“Imagine,” says Weber, “if we modern people ate exclusively entrecotes and ice cream for ten months a year, and in the remaining two months we had nothing left to do but chew nuts without any auxiliary tools.”
And even if all this happened only from time to time, the process of natural selection would lead the human chewing apparatus after many generations to significant changes. And then, quite possibly, people would have the same “buttresses” at the nose and muzzle.
Didn't find the relevant information? No problem! Use the search on the site in the upper right corner.
On the basis of the Chicago school, with its clear and limited aspirations, the complex creative system of Louis Sullivan grew. Working on skyscrapers became the impetus for him to try to create his own “philosophy of architecture.” The building interested him in connection with the human activity it served, interested him as a kind of organism and as part of a larger whole - the urban environment. He turns to the fundamental principles of the integrity of composition, the living sense of which has been lost by bourgeois culture, and in the article “High-rise administrative buildings considered from an artistic point of view,” published in 1893, he first formulates the basis of his theoretical credo - the law, to which he attaches universal significance and the absolute: “Be it an eagle in swift flight, an apple tree in blossom, a draft horse carrying a load, a babbling stream, clouds floating in the sky and above all this the eternal movement of the sun - everywhere and always form follows function”16. Sullivan seems to be unoriginal - more than forty years before him, similar thoughts about architecture were expressed by Rhinou, and the idea itself goes back to ancient philosophy. But for Sullivan, this “Law” became part of a widely developed creative concept.
“Function” appears in this concept as a synthetic concept, encompassing not only a utilitarian purpose, but also an emotional experience. which must arise in contact with the building. Correlating “form” with “function,” Sullivan meant the expression in form of the entire variety of manifestations of life. His true thought is far from the simplistic interpretations given to it by Western European functionalists of the 1920s, who understood the aphorism “form follows function” as a call for pure utilitarianism.
Unlike his Chicago colleagues, Sullivan set a grandiose utopian task for architecture: to give impetus to the transformation of society and lead it to humanistic goals. The theory of architecture created by Sullivan borders on poetry in its emotionality. He introduced into it moments of social utopia - the dream of democracy as a social order based on the brotherhood of man. He connected the aesthetic with the ethical, the concept of beauty with the concept of truth, professional tasks with social aspirations (which, however, did not go beyond the boundaries of an idealized dream).
With the slowness of complex rhythms and endless accumulations of images, Sullivan’s eloquence is reminiscent of the “inspirational catalogues” 17 with which “Leaves” is replete
herbs" by Walt Whitman. The similarity is not accidental - both represent one trend in the development of thought, one trend in American culture. And Sullivan's attitude toward technology is closer to the urban romanticism of Whitman than to the calculating rationalism of Jenney or Burnham.
Turning to a specific theme, the skyscraper office, Sullivan's search for form is based not on the spatial lattice of its frame, but on how the building is used. He comes to a triple division of its mass: the first, publicly accessible floor - the base, then - a honeycomb of identical cells - office premises - united into the “body” of the building, and, finally, the completion - the technical floor and cornice. Sullivan emphasizes what attracted attention to such buildings - the predominant vertical dimension. The dotted windows between the pylons tell us more about the people associated with the individual cells of the building than about the tiers of the frame structure, united by a powerful rhythm of verticals.
So, in accordance with his theory, Sullivan created the Wainwright Building in St. Louis (1890). Brick pylons hide the pillars of a steel skeleton here. But the same pylons without supporting structures behind them make the rhythm of the verticals twice as frequent, drawing the eye upward. The “body” of the building is perceived as a whole, and not as a layering of many identical floors. The true “step” of the structure is found in the first floors, which serve as the base; it forms the spans of shop windows and entrances. The ornamental strip completely covers the attic floor, completed by a flat cornice slab.
