Form follows function article. Functionalism in architecture

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.

A 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 condition 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.

More for the fall seminar. Not because it was a discovery for me, but because Alexander Herbertovich, like few modern architectural theorists, is able to formulate what is floating in the air of design, but in the form of some fragmentary thoughts, phrases, quietly expressed doubts and other vagueness . Notes in the margins, in short...
And here everything is clear and to the point!
He writes about the understanding of functionalism clearly outlining the period of the 20th century from the 30s to the 70s.
But the most interesting thing is that we still (in landscape design) remain in this complacency.

Trying to think through what happened to all of us, including architects and designers, in the last hundred years, we clearly understand that a certain path has been traveled and, moreover, with great speed. And in it one can identify two main categories: function and form. We have lived almost the entire century between these two categories, placing them one after another in order of causality: from function to form.

For all their apparent irrefutability, both categories of this “law” of functionalism are far from clear. We have little idea of ​​what function is and what form is.
The formula underlying functionalism is very simple: Form follows function. In other words, form is a function of function. This doubling of categories is already causing confusion.
But what’s worse is that functionalism did not invent any rule for following function.
There is no algorithm that turns a certain function into a certain form. So this principle is not theoretical, but purely ideological.

In ideology, it meant more a certain intention than a working principle. But in reality, it all boiled down to the fact that both function and form were depicted in the form of spatial-geometric, most often flat, two-dimensional schemes, and these schemes were either combined or similar to each other. And although circuits can be connected both in direct and in reverse order, that is, either from function to form, or from form to function, the first order was most often used - from function to form.
Apparently the point is that the function is closer to the design task, and the form is closer to the project itself.
So, in addition to its magical ideological meaning, it also meant something banal - the project is created according to the assignment and in accordance with its requirements. This principle, of course. was known long before the advent of functionalism, although in practice it was not always observed and could not always be observed. The problem was that the description of the task and the description of the project were carried out in different languages, and the transition or translation from one language to another remains as little operational as the translation of an imaginary function into an imaginary form.

So what is surprising is not the exquisite justice of this formula, as an eternal truth, but rather the fact that it was accepted as such for a long time, without being in the least embarrassed by its obscurity and ineffectiveness.

Semiotics revealed what the modern movement initially categorically denied, namely, that in the modern movement it is not so much the method that is presented as a replacement for the outdated category of style that operates, but the same style as a normative way of replicating samples.

Instead of analytically deducing form from function, in practice everywhere there was an adjustment of all architectural forms to one stylistic stencil, discovered by the leaders of modern architecture of the 20-30s.

The formation of design took place at the beginning of the 20th century under the slogans of democratization of industry and easing the living conditions of millions of workers and employees, which were practically identified with market needs for mass production and functionality, where functions were understood as universal processes - sleep, cleaning, clothing, eating, sanitary and hygienic and transport processes. It was for such broad masses that projects of minimal housing, functional types of apartments, kitchen equipment and light furniture, standard offices and retail premises were created. It was with the broad masses of consumers in mind that the first models of Ford production cars, vacuum cleaners and electric irons, kettles, bicycles and baby strollers were developed.

Considering functionalism as an ideology, I want to emphasize that its idea of ​​the functions that supposedly determine the form was reduced to a minimum number of categories and concepts, reducing the entire infinite variety of real forms of behavior and activity to a small number of concepts.
Such a reduction also had a very important ideological connotation - it leveled the levels of wealth and luxury - reducing all needs to elementary structures, which was perceived as one of the lines of democratization of design.
This reduction of functions corresponded to a reduction of possible forms constructed from elements - planes, faces, holes, usually rectangular, and occasionally oblique, several curves and other figures of planimetry and stereometry.

At the intersection of reduced functions and no less reduced forms, the typology was born, which became the core of the functional method in architecture and urban planning.

This language used geometric elements - lines, points, planes, three-dimensional figures both for the schematic description of functions and for the construction of elementary architectural and planning forms. Thus, the language of geometric schematics turned out to be a mediator and stimulator of the broadest practice of functional design.
Functional diagrams gave rise to a number of standard models - flows, zones, structural cells and schemes for their configuration. The elements of the forms themselves, proportional and regulatory grids, lattices, as well as figures from which flat and volumetric compositions were assembled, were constructed in a similar way.
This universality of the language of diagrams acted as a form of implementation of the design method of functionalism itself and, together with it, created a practically applicable and instantly spread throughout the world stereotype of constructivist and functionalist international architecture of the late 30s and early 70s.

Based on 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 storefronts and entrances. The ornamental strip completely covers the attic floor, completed by a flat cornice slab.

From Modern to New Architecture. Form follows function. Frank Lloyd Wright. Organic architecture.

Decorative techniques soon ceased to attract modernist architects. Over time, this style changes, and undecorated volumetric forms begin to predominate in it. The principle of benefit and the criterion of functionality are brought to the point beyond which a new era of modern architecture begins with many directions and movements. Their development was facilitated by truly revolutionary advances in construction technology. The widespread use of iron structures and reinforced concrete, large glass, moving external load-bearing walls inside buildings (frame construction) freed the hands of innovative architects, allowed them to abandon previous building codes and rules, and opened the way for bold experiments.

In the 1880s In the largest cities of America - Chicago and New York - they began to build high-rise buildings. This was due to two reasons. The development of business, i.e., activities specific to capitalism in organizing production and trade, gave rise to a large number of different kinds of offices. For the effective functioning of banks, company departments, insurance, law, commercial agencies, etc., it was advisable to place them in one place. It was convenient for the work of various institutions and for visitors. The need for such a concentration of office buildings caused a significant increase in prices for land plots in the business part of the city. In an effort to justify the cost of purchasing a plot of land, the developer demanded that the architect design as many floors as possible; At the same time, he himself occupied only part of the building, and rented out the rest of the area to various companies and offices. Such high-rise buildings in the United States began to be called skyscrapers.

When the number of floors of a stone building increases to 8-10, its walls become very thick in the lower part, which reduces the size of the premises and, consequently, the usable area. This makes the construction of stone buildings of such height unprofitable. In the 1880s In Chicago, the idea of ​​using a steel frame as the load-bearing frame of a multi-story building was born, which made it possible to significantly increase its height (currently there are frame buildings of 100 or more floors).

Chicago commercial buildings, built in the second half of the 1880s - the first half of the 1890s, had a hitherto unprecedented appearance: unlike other buildings erected in the cities of America and Europe, their facades were almost devoid of decoration in the form of pilasters, which were then obligatory, belts, etc., the windows were arranged in a uniform grid without so-called “compositional accents”. The windows themselves acquired an unusual appearance: in contrast to the openings of vertical proportions, due to the design features of the stone wall, they became horizontal, which was natural for openings in the outer fencing of a frame building. This direction in architecture was called the Chicago School.

The most prominent representative of the Chicago School was the architect L. Sullivan. In 1896, construction was completed on the last and best work of the Chicago School - a department store designed by Sullivan (Fig. 198). The appearance of this building foreshadowed the emergence of a new style. However, for another forty years after its features took shape in Chicago, frame skyscraper buildings continued to be built in America, eclectically decorating them with details imitating heavy masonry. Nowadays, these buildings are perceived as symbols of conservatism and bad taste.

In 1908, the Viennese architect A. Loos put forward the idea that buildings and household items do not need to be decorated with ornaments at all. His articles on this topic were then the subject of ridicule, but the future showed that this judgment was prophetic. Having proclaimed the rejection of ornament, Loos practically followed this principle, constructing buildings whose ascetic appearance anticipated the aesthetics of architecture of the 1920s.A supporter of functionalism in architecture, simple, geometric forms. He opposed the Art Nouveau style. Author of the phrase “function determines form.” Influenced the worldview of four leading masters of the 20th century - Gropius, Le Corbusier, Mies van der Rohe, Wright.

Organic architecture - orderliness and rationalism, ex. from European canons.

Organic architecture is an architecture in which the ideal is integrity in the philosophical sense, where the whole relates to the part as the part relates to the whole, and where the nature of materials, the nature of purpose, the nature of everything being accomplished becomes clear, appears as a necessity. From this nature it follows what character a true artist can give to a building under given specific conditions. F. L. Wright.

Organic architecture is a trend in 20th century architecture that was first formulated in the 1890s. American architect Louis Henry Sullivan (1856-1924), who used it to denote the correspondence between function and form; he used it in his works on architecture to dissociate himself from the eclecticism that prevailed at that time. The concept of organic architecture is very ambiguous and can hardly be precisely defined.

L. Sullivan's ideas were developed by his studentFrank Lloyd Wright(8.06.1867 9.04.1959). The basis of Wright's concept was the idea of ​​continuity of architectural space, as opposed to the emphasized selection of its individual parts in classicist architecture. A building inscribed in nature, its external appearance arising from its internal content, the rejection of traditional laws of form - these are the characteristic features of its characteristic architectural language, which can be defined by the concept of “organic architecture”. This idea was first implemented by him in the so-called “prairie houses” (Robie House in Chicago, 1909, etc.).

Polemicizing with the extremes of functionalism, opposing it with the desire to take into account the individual needs and psychology of people, organic architecture in the mid-30s. is becoming one of the leading trends. Under the influence of her ideas, regional architectural schools emerged in the Scandinavian countries (for example, the work of Alvar Aalto.

“What functions well cannot look bad,” said the apologists of the new architecture.

The largest architect in US history, Wright put forward the principle of organic architecture, that is, holistic, being an inseparable part of the environment surrounding humans.

Organic arch concept. Frank Lloyd Wright:

“The word organic in architecture does not mean “belonging to the animal or plant world.” It refers to being, to integrity, therefore... it would be better to use the words “integral” or “inherent”... the word “organic” means: a part relates to the whole, as the whole relates to a part.” Organic architecture is an "inside-out" architecture in which integrity is the ideal.

In contrast to classical architecture with an emphasis on parts, Wright formulated the idea of ​​continuity of architectural space, thanks to which the “free plan” technique appeared.

"Space...beyond time or infinity." “The reality of a building is not the wall and the roof, but the internal space in which people live.”

There is no consistently developed method in Wright's work, so it was not possible to create a school. “In the realm of organic architecture, human creative imagination must translate the rigid language of structure into a humanly acceptable expression of form, but not invent lifeless facades or rattle the bones of structures. Poetry form is as necessary for great architecture as foliage is for a tree, flowers are for a plant, and the muscles are for the body.”

Design principlesare based on a theoretical setting: when designing a particular architectural object, it is necessary to take into account organic relationships (social, compositional and other internal and external connections) with objects of lower and higher spatial levels. For example, the unity of the consumer and the architectural object, the unity of the building with nature, the synthesis of home and landscape, architectural horizontal and horizontal fields. A house is part of the plot on which it is built. The principle of organic architecture is a new integral holistic approach: “from the inside out”, “from the earth to the light”.

« Form and function are one“ this formula is the core of architecture organic architecture... this thought should always be in the mind of the architect, who determines his attitude towards everything that is in his field of vision.” The purpose and composition of the building become unified, integral, and form one whole. Wright writes: “Form is indeed predetermined by function, but is superior to it, since the artistic imagination can accompany it without compromising it.” Concrete forms are only individual, “grow” out of the conditions of time.

Architecture. “The kind of construction that we can call today architecture is construction that involves human thought and feeling in order to create high harmony and true significance of the structure as a whole. Shelter and utilitarianism in themselves were never sufficient. The building was the highest product of the human spirit." "Architecture expresses human life." Architecture “thought of as an enclosed space.”

The role of external restrictions. “Fantasizing” and “idealizing” in unrealistic sketches is an unfamiliar thing to me. If clearly defined restrictions or requirements are not put forward to me (and the more specific, the better), I do not see a problem, I do not know what to work on and what to develop: why then bother the artist?

Tradition does not have creative ability because it is derivative. “By imitating imitation, one destroys the original tradition. Truth is divine in architecture."

Wright introduces the concept of spirit, spiritual in organic architecture as the inner essence of an object. “The spirit grows from the inside out.” The spiritual meaning is of primary importance in all cases. “The building was the highest product of the human spirit. Man has always sought to reflect in it what he thought of himself as a god-like being... man created god-like buildings.”

Waterfall House, Kaufman Mansion in Pennsylvania.

Guggenheim Museum. New York (1944-1956)

Beauty in design is a consequence of purity of function.

Thesis " form follows the 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.