For a while architects have been haunted by the prescriptive idea of form (ever) follows function*. It advocates functionality above all design considerations and helps to set a precedents to how anyone might approach design, yet the term functionality could be understood in many ways; it could sometimes mean how the buildings stand (engineering), but other times, it means usabilities or economic feasibilities. Even the Deconstructivism -which was supposed to be the antithesis of conventional functionalism- is haunted by form follows function as it deconstructs by layers of functions: i.e. skin vs. content.
 

*It is the prevailing law of all thing organic and inorganic, of all things physical and metaphysical, of all things human and of all things super-human, of all true manifestation of the head, of the heart, of the soul, that the light is recognizable in its expression that form ever follows function.
-Louis Sullivan | 1896 |

It could probably be interpreted that the contemporary history of architecture has been about fighting to break away from this idea. However, as long as architecture is meant to do something for humans, it does not escape form follows function because the forms it produces "functions” in one way or another.

Ironically, in order for the discipline of architecture to protect its self-esteem, architects must be irresponsible to immediate human needs and create new interpretations or replacement of form follows function because many functions have already been addressed. Today, structural integrity could be easily achieved, and the economical advantages are realized through standardized construction methods. Even the social functions are being replaced by the ubiquitous mobile devices. Perhaps, our proneness to rely on data is rooted in this ironic battle, but as we know, data does not produce anything neutral. There is always a will or an intent when using and selecting the data, creating the gap between the intent and the seemingly natural (that it was generated from some natural necessities) shape or form. Architecture always situate itself in the dichotomy between the image of how we want it to be seen and what it actually does or means for the users. The game simulates this dichotomy of architecturally manifested image “I” and the conventional utility “U.”


For example:

back to: | GAME Top |