Has it ever occured to you that "form follows function" is morally right?i think i once wrote it somewhere in my blog, or my private journal that i believe it's " function follow form" for me. well at least that was what i perceived when i was doing aki in year3.
after reading Geoffrey Boardbent's A Plain Man's Guide to the Theory of Signs in Architecture, many thots came to my mind:
The word "functional" has become = steel and concrete frame buildings, simple and rectangular in form and clad in white stucco, grey concrete or glass.
When u analyse these "functional" buildings; buildings that enclose space in ways which may faciliate or inhibit a particular range of activities, filter out the external environment etc. They, the pioneering "functionalist" buildings of the 20s are far from their original purpose or least function. Those which do remain have mostly been altered to fit them for continued habitation and examples of Corbs Maison la Roche and Villa Savoye at Poissy have restored to become museums.
Which means, these form-follow-function buildings are the very thing they were not suppose to be.
So this led pinky over here thinking...
so do we design building now that is multi purpose-ful? but by appealing to the masses of allowing multi purpose buildings, won't it lead to dull and boring spaces? or worst, many buildings all having the same
functions because now every building is mulit purpose. or carry on this form follow function moral?
No comments:
Post a Comment