|
View previous topic :: View next topic
|
| Author |
Message |
csintexas
millennium club
Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 1862
Location: USA
|
 Posted: Tue Jun 10, 2008 6:24 am Post subject: |
    |
|
Duh,
This person is getting close, give them 10 more years and they might figure it out.
Why call the paper "Aesthetic Functionalism" when the theory presented is "The Thesis of Aesthetic Duality" It just shows this person is still confused. I don't blame him, college seems to confuse a lot of people.
_________________
Chris Stewart
Modern Texas Home Project |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
ArchiMotion
Joined: 31 May 2008
Posts: 315
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 10, 2008 1:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Because there are various theories of Aesthetic functionalism - some in which there is a rigid relationship where aesthetic value is completely reducible to practical function. This is known as the "reduction thesis". Under this idea, there is no space for aesthetics to have their own expression, aside from fulfilling a functional requirement. The opposite of this, referred to in the introduction, is the independence thesis. This would be quite the opposite. " According to this standpoint, aesthetic and practical values are completely independent of each other."
These are thus sub-groups of the general theme of aesthetic functionalism. The theory which the author adopts is the one of aesthetic duality, as he considers it a more modest position and thus one of integration between the two extreme camps. He is thus seeking a balance. "When an object has a purpose or practical function, then some but not necessarily all the aesthetic judgments that can legitimately be made about the object refer to that function." Thus, the function is not denied in the object, but there is more space and freedom for expression.
"5. Conclusion
In summary, we have rejected two theses about the relationship between aesthetics and practical function, namely the reduction and independence theses. Aesthetic value is neither fully reducible to practical function nor completely independent of it. Instead we have defended a thesis of aesthetic duality, according to which objects with practical functions can be aesthetically appraised both under descriptions that refer to these practical functions and under descriptions not doing so. Finally, we have defended the contributory thesis according to which satisfaction of functional requirements in most cases contributes positively to aesthetic value. Hence, some support can be found for aesthetic functionalism, but only for a very weak form of it."
Thus, the theory of aesthetic duality is thus a sub-group of the general idea of aesthetic functionalism, but a very weak form, loosely attached to the idea, that actually seeks to brake away from the same while still operating in it's context. 
It is admissible that a good phrasing of the topic could have been Aesthetic duality within the idea of aesthetic functionalism, but it would perhaps also have made for a lengthly title to the thesis.
I hope this helps to explain your confusion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
csintexas
millennium club
Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 1862
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 10, 2008 3:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Anyway, it isn't any groundbreaking idea that architecture should contain both functionality and beauty. Unlike art, architecture is both functional and aesthetic.
There would be very few people who would be extreme reductionists and even less that would be opposite.
_________________
Chris Stewart
Modern Texas Home Project |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Richard Haut
millennium club
Joined: 18 Apr 2004
Posts: 1137
Location: Nice, France
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 10, 2008 3:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I am a bit baffled about how such an article seems to have avoided trying to define "aesthetic" or beautiful".
there is little point in trying to consider that something may be X or Y, or a combination of X and Y - maybe a little more X, maybe a little more Y - when there is no definition of X.
a lemon squeezer that has a pleasing design - is that an "aesthetic" quality ? are we implying that a machine that makes toast with a cute shape and an amusing graphic is "beautiful" ?
if the lemon squeezer cannot squeeze lemons or the toast machine cannot make toast, a pleasing design would hardly be adequate reason to keep the useless thing. Could a lemon squeezer or a machine to make toast actually be "beautiful" ? Yes, it is possible - but without an attempt at definition, there is no distinction between the currently fashionable pleasing shape and something which achieves the higher status of being beautiful.
_________________
Richard Haut has worked with the architectural profession for over 25 years and produces the weekly Richard Haut's Competitions, which has given architects details of many thousands of projects for which they can apply across Britain and Europe. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ArchiMotion
Joined: 31 May 2008
Posts: 315
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 10, 2008 3:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
As far as I know, FFF in modernism was a reaction to previous styles which allowed for a greater freedom of ornament in detriment of the function. As any reactionary movement, it was doomed eventually to be de-mythed.
And now, this article demonstrates still there are different camps on this issue and the degree of freedom one should have to introduce ornament into one's design, aside from a direct FFF relationship.
The issue is not what is beautiful or not, but the degree of freedom designers find themselves to operate in, depending on their view of this relationship. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Richard Haut
millennium club
Joined: 18 Apr 2004
Posts: 1137
Location: Nice, France
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 10, 2008 4:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | The issue is not what is beautiful or not |
I am well aware of the "reaction to previous styles" - it dates back to Adolf Loos' essay Ornament und Verbrechen, written exactly 100 years ago, in 1908.
he considered ornament to be degenerate - immoral.
all that seems to have happened in the Century is to pretend that ornament somehow obstructs function.
that is a view which manages to be even more pretentious than Loos.
_________________
Richard Haut has worked with the architectural profession for over 25 years and produces the weekly Richard Haut's Competitions, which has given architects details of many thousands of projects for which they can apply across Britain and Europe. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SDR
millennium club
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Posts: 1712
Location: San Francisco
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 10, 2008 5:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Artists and designers, including architects, are not above the all-too-human tendency to exaggerate when trying to "sell" their ideas -- and to invent plausible explanations for some of the intangible concepts that they deal in. This passage, found on the previous page in a post by ArchiMotion, gets us closer to a description of the problem than is generally found:
"This was a central issue in the functionalist movement in architecture and design, one of the most influential artistic and cultural movements of the early twentieth century. The term 'functionalism' is ambiguous, not least since the functionalist movement contained diverse and partly contradictory artistic and social tendencies.[1] Modernist architects and designers had a difficult time fighting against influential conservative enemies. They soon found that an efficient argumentative strategy was to emphasize that their constructions were more functional than traditional architecture and design. Hence, even if the architecture of a house was largely based on geometrical principles (and thus on "pure" aesthetic considerations), it was more expedient to represent it as based on principles of functionality. It is important, therefore, to distinguish between functionalism as an historical movement and the more limited "functionalist" viewpoint that the aesthetic properties of an object depend on its functionality. Here we will be concerned with the latter, but statements by members of the functionalist movement will be used to exemplify the positions analyzed." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ArchiMotion
Joined: 31 May 2008
Posts: 315
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 10, 2008 5:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Richard Haut wrote: | | Quote: | | The issue is not what is beautiful or not |
I am well aware of the "reaction to previous styles" - it dates back to Adolf Loos' essay Ornament und Verbrechen, written exactly 100 years ago, in 1908.
he considered ornament to be degenerate - immoral.
all that seems to have happened in the Century is to pretend that ornament somehow obstructs function.
that is a view which manages to be even more pretentious than Loos. |
Which is worse, to remove all ornament and call it immoral, or allow for ornament, provided it is a direct result of function, or to allow for a direct relationship and inter-dependency between form and function, and allow ornament to fit in but with a somewhat more loose relationship? I would rather prefer the later. This to me is not pretentious. To assume ornament is immoral is certainly pretentious.
Even in the most radical position as taken on by Muthesius, the Independence Thesis "....Muthesius was also eager to point out that beauty and function are not contradictory; it is possible to combine the two".
So who was saying ornament obstructs function in some way? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kevin
Site Admin
Joined: 13 Apr 2004
Posts: 1117
Location: Eugene, Oregon
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 10, 2008 5:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ArchiMotion, thanks for participating. And please keep in mind that any given member need not post replies to every thread... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
csintexas
millennium club
Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 1862
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 11, 2008 6:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
These ideas tend to be extreme in my view:
Ornamentation is immoral
Form is absolutely derived from function
This does not mean as a general rule that since architecture is both functional and aesthetic that the form should not be derived by it's function. Ornamentation by itself can not be moral or immoral.
In the blown glass example: | Quote: |
The reduction thesis may be appealingly simple, but it is fraught with difficulties. To begin with, it has problems in dealing with pure art. Consider two objects that are both made by the same glass-blower. One is a vase that is used to keep flowers in, and the other an artwork called "pillar" that cannot be used as a vase since it has a hole in its bottom. It so happens that the two objects are strikingly similar to each other. According to the reduction thesis, the aesthetic properties of the vase are entirely determined by its function as a vase. The "pillar," however, has no function (or rather, no function that is prior to and independent of its aesthetic properties). Therefore its aesthetic properties cannot be derived in the same way as those of the vase. According to ordinary aesthetic intuitions, there is much in common between the aesthetic criteria that we apply to the vase and those that we apply to the "pillar." A line that we find graceful or elegant in one of them would probably be found to have the same property in the other. The reduction thesis makes it difficult to account for this, since it subsumes the aesthetic properties of the vase under its function, that is not at all shared by the "pillar." |
Two identical objects one has a hole in it's bottom and is useless as a vase the other does not and is used as a vase.
Both are beautiful only considering their aesthetic quality. The one with the hole is an ugly vase. We can in fact only judge a book by it's cover but why would we want to?
As for freedom to design how we want to -yes we are all free to do that.
I think the main problem with FFF may be that it is viewed in light of the extremist modernist ideas but I don't think that one group defines the phrase. Clearly Sullivan never intended it that way.
_________________
Chris Stewart
Modern Texas Home Project |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SDR
millennium club
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Posts: 1712
Location: San Francisco
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 11, 2008 6:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
I prefer Wright's "Form and function are one" over Sullivan's "Form follows function" but both are at best misleading and largely irrelevant to the design process -- and to its appreciation by both professional and lay viewers.
People love simplistic mottos, I guess. . .and alliteration, too !
SDR |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
csintexas
millennium club
Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 1862
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 11, 2008 7:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
People love simplistic mottos, I guess. . .and alliteration, too !
yes, I would say this is true.
I prefer Wright's "Form and function are one" over Sullivan's "Form follows function"
What is the distinction between these two forms of the phrase that makes one better? (Both say form is directly related to function in my mind.)
both are at best misleading and largely irrelevant to the design process
How can thinking of form and function be irrelevant to the design process?
...and to its appreciation by both professional and lay viewers.
What does this mean?
_________________
Chris Stewart
Modern Texas Home Project |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SDR
millennium club
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Posts: 1712
Location: San Francisco
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 11, 2008 7:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
There is a simple and clear distinction between stating that one thing follows another, and that both things occur simultaneously. The actual difference doesn't mean much, however.
FFF is icing on the cake of both the work of designing, and the viewing of the result, because it is a simplistic motto, not a method or a style -- as we have discussed it here. The reality of the design process, and the variety of results as pertains to the presence or absence of function, etc., reveals FF to have little real meaning -- in my view.
Some design starts with the function and has an aesthetic component added, sometimes as an afterthought, while other objects start with a visual idea and have their necessary function -- if any -- worked out later. Each is a valid approach depending on the circumstances.
There is nothing wrong with an ideal --I am a romantic idealist myself. But a realist must acknowledge that life and work are far more varied -- thank heaven -- than any simple motto can accurately encompass.
SDR |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mx2
millennium club
Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 1968
Location: Miami, Florida
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 11, 2008 9:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | There is a simple and clear distinction between stating that one thing follows another, and that both things occur simultaneously. The actual difference doesn't mean much, however. |
Less is More...the real essence of these coined excerpts is that one SHOULD only be reminded of the full meaning, in context, of what the thesis is behind these headliners...when one utters any of these phases in part, I know what stands behind it and therefore will be reminded of the thinking when aplying any methodology that suits me. In other words, if I am designing something, it's good to be reminded that during that process there are some common sense issues that should not be taken lightly.
A vase with a hole is art. A house with no roof is art. A vase that is beautiful can be in such a wide variety of material and shapes that not all are ugly or pretty...just as a house can be either depending who's buying. The point being, when faced with unlimited choices, these short sayings CAN help guide us through complex issues, but they are NOT the end-all of end-alls.
mx2.5
_________________
*Art of Architecture: The conscious use of skill and creative imagination in the production of an aesthetic building.
*Science of Architecture: The calculated use of technical skill and knowledge in the construction of a functional building. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
solidred
Joined: 05 Jan 2006
Posts: 596
Location: Scotland
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2008 3:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| To further MX2's point above with an example, one of my first bosses used to aim for symmetry in the way details worked as part of an overall composition. The overall composition, on the other hand, wasn't symmetrical. When, fresh from graduate school, I'd start sketching out something gestural and defiantly asymmetrical, he'd try to pull me back to a more balanced detail (say we're talking a repeated facade element). I'd say 'why? what's the great thing about this defaulting to symmetry?' And he'd reply 'it should be symmetrical unless there's a good reason why it shouldn't be.' This was a bit like 'form follows function' as a modus operandi. This guy wasn't a slave to symmetry, he just wanted some simple, even dumb concepts which could be applied everywhere as a sort of self-discipline; something to prevent the mass of wire, wood, metal, brick, concrete, precast, programmatic demands of volume, surface, envelope etc. running away from some sort of stable, reasoned grasp. He used such a concept as an ongoing clarifying and disciplining tool, not as a would-be metaphysics of life... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
blogger
del.icio.us
digg
slashdot
