Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Functionalism - Printed
Functionalism - Printed
DEFINITION:
In architecture, functionalism is the principle that buildings should be designed based solely on the purpose and
function of the building. This principle is less self-evident than it first appears, and is a matter of confusion and
controversy within the profession, particularly in regard to modern architecture.
The theoretical articulation of functionalism in buildings can be traced back to the Vitruvian triad, where
'utilitas' (variously translated as 'commodity', 'convenience', or 'utility') stands alongside 'venustas' (beauty)
and 'firmitas' (firmness) as one of three classic goals of architecture. Functionalist views were typical of
some gothic revival architects. In particular, Augustus Welby Pugin wrote that "there should be no features about a
building which are not necessary for convenience, construction, or propriety" and "all ornament should consist of
enrichment of the essential construction of the building".
The debate about functionalism and aesthetics is often framed as a mutually exclusive choice, when in fact there
are architects, like Will Bruder,James Polshek and Ken Yeang, who attempt to satisfy all three Vitruvian goals.
In the wake of World War I, an international functionalist architecture movement emerged as part of the wave
of Modernism. The ideas were largely inspired by the need to build a new and better world for the people, as broadly
and strongly expressed by the social and political movements of Europe after the extremely devastating world war. In
this respect, functionalist architecture is often linked with the ideas of socialism and modernhumanism. A new slight
addition to this new wave of functionalism was that not only should buildings and houses be designed around the
purpose of functionality, architecture should also be used as a means to physically create a better world and a
better life for people in the broadest sense. This new functionalist architecture had the strongest impact
in Germany, Czechoslovakia, the USSR and the Netherlands, and from the 1930s also inScandinavia (including Finland).
History of functionalism
In 1896, Chicago architect Louis Sullivan coined the phrase 'form ever follows function' to capture his belief that
a building's size, massing, spatial grammar and other characteristics should be driven solely by the function of the
building. The implication is that if the functional aspects are satisfied, architectural beauty would naturally and
necessarily follow.
Sullivan's credo is often viewed as being ironic in light of his extensive use of intricate ornament, since a
common belief among functionalist architects is that ornament serves no function. The credo also does not address
whose function he means. The architect of an apartment building, for instance, can easily be at cross-purposes with
the owners of the building regarding how the building should look and feel, and they could both be at cross-purposes
with the future tenants. Nevertheless, 'form follows function' expresses a significant and enduring idea. Sullivan's
protégé Frank Lloyd Wright is also cited as an exemplar of functional design.
In the mid-1930s, functionalism began to be discussed as an aesthetic approach rather than a matter of design
integrity. The idea of functionalism was conflated with lack of ornamentation, which is a different matter. It became
a pejorative term associated with the most bald and brutal ways to cover space, like cheap commercial buildings and
sheds, then finally used, for example in academic criticism of Buckminster Fuller's geodesic domes, simply as a
synonym for 'gauche'.
For 70 years the preeminent and influential American architect Philip Johnson held that the profession has no
functional responsibility whatsoever, and this is one of the many views today. Johnson said, "Where form comes from I
don’t know, but it has nothing at all to do with the functional or sociological aspects of our architecture". The
position of postmodern architect Peter Eisenman is based on a user-hostile theoretical basis and even more extreme:
"I don't do function.”
EXAMPLES: