Site Logo

Life of an Architect

  • Podcast
  • about me
  • Questions / Contact
  • F. A. Q.
  • Do you want to be an Architect?
  • Architecture Books+
You are here: Home / Andrew H / Architecture: Form, Function, and Object

Architecture: Form, Function, and Object

September 3, 2020 by Andrew Hawkins 2 Comments

“Form follows Function.” was a phrase coined by the late Louis Sullivan in 1896 in his article titled The Tall Office Building Artistically Considered. In reality, the phrase was “Form ever follows function”, and was based on Roman ideas of Vitruvius of architecture being solid, useful, and beautiful. There have been several other writings that followed in history on this subject based on this idea as well. “Ornament and Crime” comes to mind quickly. This modern idea developed in the late 19th and early 20th century in architecture and still has what I would call a stronghold in the profession and discipline. This statement essentially became the mantra of Modernism. But is this still an appropriate way to think about architecture and design?
*** Quick note for clarity… I am creating some abbreviations for my use here; Form Follows Function noted as F3, Form over Function (FOF), and Capital A “Architecture” as the notion of what is beyond the basic building structure of architecture. ***

Architecture as Program and function

Function yields to Form. This would be another way of stating this position. Architecture is the reflection of the program and the spaces it creates and serves. These elements begin to give the project its Form. This faction believes in the notion of Form Follows Function. The functions of the spaces are the priority in the design process. They represent the primary elements to drive the design and the Form itself. I would go so far as to even state the idea that the programmed spaces are what give this Architecture its meaning. This was embraced by the Modernists of the early and mid-20th century in many aspects of their work. The tectonics, the materials, textures, forms, colors all were influenced and a result of the program or function of the space. There is a very large part of me that falls in line with this ideology. Program is primary. Certainly, this is the truest statement ever made. Right?

Architecture as Object

I would say that somewhere in the Post-Modernist era architects began to revolt against this idea on many levels. The idea of Architecture as Object began to be more prevalent. This in many ways is an older and more “classical” approach to Architecture. I would even say that this postmodern ideology has its roots in classical architectural thought, not in the classical sense of ornament, but more in the notion of Architecture as an Object. This can be evidenced in many postmodern designs of buildings that are meant to be understood as singular objects, and quite directly I might say. (looks in the direction of Michael Graves) So from this, I would propose that currently there are two (hopefully three) modes of thought within architecture concerning form and function.

Gehry - Loius Vuitton Foundation
Frank Gehry,  Louis Vuitton Foundation – photo credit Iwan Baan 2014

In the opposition to the F3 mentality would it be “Object over Occupants?” … “Form over Function?” Those are my best efforts to turn a quip or catchphrase for the opposing theory. I am sure there may be some other much more eloquent way to phrase it. Simply put it becomes most likely “Architecture as Object”. I would say that this group of architects tends to see Architecture as a form of Art more than the previous group. That may be overstating it a bit as I am certain the F3 group still considers their work as art. Yet I would say this group places a stronger emphasis on Art. So this ideology believes the framework that the Form of the Architectural Object is the most important concept in design. The program or usage is secondary to the notion of the overall form’s creation and expression. The expression of the Form is the “capital A” Architecture. The Form is the ultimate definition of the design and it is paramount to all other elements. Once the form is designed then the program is put into the Form that has been created. Often times squished or molded into some spaces possibly not well suited for the function. In my opinion, this is what many people think all Architects believe, mainly because many of the most well-known architects fall into this camp. Think of Frank Gehry, Zaha Hadid, Rem Koolhas, Daniel Libeskind, etc. as the image that is mostly associated with Architecture. In some ways, I think this is the detriment to our profession as the built works feel very disassociated from the general public and ideologies they readily understand or maybe simply relate to. While as an architect, I can understand the work and see it has some merit, I think that it is very focused on Architecture as Art and Object. And this has given away some of our authority in the world as a whole. I know that others may state that the loss of full creativity is the reason for our depreciation in agency also. It is a consistent argument within our ranks.

Glenn Murcutt Magney House
Glenn Murcutt, Magney House – photo credit Anthony Browell

Then I think there is also a third and final faction of architects that attempts to join these two separate ideologies into one. I think that many current architects may fall into this category to some extent. They understand the importance of programmed space but also strive to create meaningful and expressive forms. But even in this pursuit of duality, one element will take precedent over the other. They cannot be equals. While that may be a possibility, I think it is in all honesty very improbable. If I am incorrect, please provide me some examples. Yet the power of this faction comes from the acknowledgment that the two other factions have it incorrect in their singular view. That Architecture must be a balance of both in order to reach that next level of capital “A”. So the success here comes in the attempts to resolve the previous conflicts of the 20th-century theories about Architecture into a solution that is both extremely functional and extremely expressive.

Form vs Function Sullivan / Zaha
Louis Sullivan Prudential Building (1896) and Zaha Hadid proposed CECEP’s Tower in Shanghai (2020)

So is one of these attitudes the correct point of view? I am honestly not certain these days. While I have always been a strong proponent of Form Follows Function, I am starting to think that the third option is really what Architecture needs to regain its relevance. In my humble opinion, this may be one of the greatest challenges currently in architecture. (Yes, after climate change)  This has been brewing in the back of my mind for some time, but now as I spend more time in academia and theory; it has pushed itself into my forefront and urged me to reevaluate my position. An act that I think may be forever in progress, but a healthy process for sure.

Fay E Jones Thorn Crown Chapel
Fay E Jones Thorn Crown Chapel Eureka Springs, Arkansas – photo thorncrown.com

Form follows Function Form Over Function
There is a sector of the work being done currently that has taken the idea even to the point of Function Dictates Form, which produces some very benign and possibly loathsome architecture. (definitely lower case “a” here) While as a principal of my own office I can understand the push of budgets, limits of time, and will of clients can completely reshape your project in some instances, we should all strive for better. This is what will give us a return to our influence over the built environment as a whole and allow our profession to do what it does best and solve problems in a holistic and meaningful way. Food for thought…

Until next time, Andrew H AIA Signature

even better stuff from Life of an Architect

Every Architecture Firm is Hiring

A Simple Deck

Relax and Recharge - Architect Style

Ep 163: Architectural Wanderlust

There are no stupid questions

046: Working From Home

Job Site Vocabulary - a starter kit

I'm Nine Years Old - The Birth Year

057: Renovating your House
058: Talking Shop with Building Science Fight Club

Share this:

  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window) WhatsApp
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print

Filed Under: Andrew H, Design, Design Studio, Schools of Architecture, Theories Tagged With: Architecture and Society, Architecture School, Architecture Theory, design, Modern Architecture

Search Life of an Architect

Subscribe to Podcast

Apple PodcastsSpotifyAndroidiHeartRadioby EmailTuneInRSS

Subscribe to our mailing list

* indicates required

Apparel for Architects

T-Shirts for Architects - Bob Borson

Support for Advice or Guidance - or if you simply want to show appreciation for the content produced on this site

Thanks!
Other Amount
Project Reference or Support for Questions Answered:

Trending on Life of an Architect

Ten Cathedrals to see before you die
Architectural Graphics 101 - Symbols
Architectural Graphics 101: Cover Sheet
Architectural Graphics 101 - Reflected Ceiling Plans
Architectural Graphics 101: Finish Schedules
Architectural Graphics 101 - Window Schedules
Do you want to be an Architect?
Architectural Graphics 101 - Wall Types
Architectural Graphics 101 - Layers
Ep 177: Hanging Out Your Shingle

My “Serious” Disclaimer

The complimentary advice provided on ‘Life of an Architect’ is based on an abbreviated examination of the minimal facts given, not the typical extensive (and sometimes exhaustive) analysis I conduct when working with my clients. Therefore, anything you read on this site is not a substitute for actually working with me. Following my casual advice is at your own peril … if you want my undivided attention, I would recommend hiring me. Cheers.

Pages

  • Comment Policy
  • Privacy Policy
  • Architecture Books+
  • about me
  • Questions?
  • F. A. Q.
  • Do you want to be an Architect?
  • Podcast

Life of an Architect | Bob Borson

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • LinkedIn

Archives of Awesomeness

Copyright © 2025 Life of an Architect

 

Loading Comments...