|
View previous topic :: View next topic
|
| Author |
Message |
SDR
millennium club
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Posts: 1716
Location: San Francisco
|
 Posted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 1:47 pm Post subject: |
    |
|
"Dear Theo, Will life never treat me decently? I am wracked by despair! My head is pounding! Mrs. Sol Schwimmer is suing me because I made her bridge as I felt it and not to fit her ridiculous mouth! That's right! I can't work to order like a common tradesman! I decided her bridge should be enormous and billowing, with wild, explosive teeth flaring up in every direction like fire! Now she is upset because it won't fit in her mouth! She is so bourgeois and stupid, I want to smash her! I tried forcing the false plate in but it sticks out like a star burst chandelier. Still, I find it beautiful. She claims she can't chew! What do I care whether she can chew or not! Theo, I can't go on like this much longer! (...) - Vincent"
From Woody Allen's “If the Impressionists Had Been Dentists: A fantasy exploring the transposition of temperament." (1) |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
csintexas
millennium club
Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 1919
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 2:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
good find DJ, but it will have to wait till I have time to read through it all.
_________________
Chris Stewart
Modern Texas Home Project |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
csintexas
millennium club
Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 1919
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 3:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well right off the bat I find:
| Quote: | | Whether we wonder about the function of the heart in human physiology, or the function of facades in a townscape, hearts and facades have to exist before anybody starts wondering about their functions. In both natural and social sciences form predates function: |
This is stupid. The heart was not created and then a function was found for it. The need to circulate blood came and the heart was created to fill that need.
Form usually proceeds function. Although in the next paragraph they talk about evolution where random changes lead to refinement. Function still proceeds but random changes may or may not improve the form.
The advantage we have over our DNA is that we think and so (presumably) we don't need to rely on random design.
_________________
Chris Stewart
Modern Texas Home Project |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SDR
millennium club
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Posts: 1716
Location: San Francisco
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 4:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| precede |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
djswan
Joined: 17 Aug 2007
Posts: 838
Location: Montana, USA
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 4:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
http://www.firstscience.com/site/articles/seq.asp
DNA won the battle of chemical language.
We whooped up on other "humans" with our syntax about 40,000 years ago
Just giving Chris a helping hand with two opposable thumbs up, proceed.
and smiling 
_________________
n/a |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
djswan
Joined: 17 Aug 2007
Posts: 838
Location: Montana, USA
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 5:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mx2 wrote: | Common sense...you spend thousands of dollars and months studying elaborate theory and wild methodology in order to sharpen your skill of...common sense. Form follows function is the simplistic rationale behind a common sense...ie, a door must be taller than a person otherwise one must stoop uncomfortably or band their head on the header.
well, perhaps it should be simplified to "sense", since it is not all that common...and it appears some need iconic jingles to remember some com...I mean, sense...
mx2.5 |
In some wierd way I agree, so...
Lets start with the Common Sense of the Big Bang.
The event happens and chaos is everywhere. What was next?
Is common sense a wiki link? I"ll check after this post.
Derek
_________________
n/a |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SDR
millennium club
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Posts: 1716
Location: San Francisco
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
csintexas
millennium club
Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 1919
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 06, 2008 5:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
*) A CAVEAT (added February 2007): The critique of the doctrine form follows function, presented in this article discusses only the original modernist context and the original Sullivanian and later functionalist meaning of the dictum. In this critique I argue that in proposing the superficially plausible but entirely unfeasible idea of preordained solutions, the aim of Greenough, Sullivan, and their modernist followers was to denigrate, defame and disqualify the 19th century revivalist and eclectic styles as valid aesthetic options, and to advance the idea of a new, unified, modern, historically-necessary-because-historically-preordained formal language. In other words, the form follows function dictum was devised, and functioned, as a hammer for smashing a particular, then current, aesthetic approach. Prohibitive but barren as a design precept, the dictum was a result of fascination with the 19th century art history derived idea of a historically necessary expression of the new epoch. In its consequence the dictum helped to institutionalize and cement the subsequent formalism and aestheticism of the modernist approach to architecture and design.
It is a fact, however, that at present the dictum is often used in a sense that is not hit by the critique above, and that in that present sense the dictum can be considered unobjectionable. Today, the dictum is often understood, and used, simply as an exhortation to design things (products, layouts, websites etc.) in a purposeful way, in the sense of fitting aesthetic solutions to non-aesthetic functional requirements in such ways that the first does not collide with the second. In this usage of today there is, in other words, no element of a belief in pre-ordained solutions, or of prohibiting, or advancing, any particular aesthetics, style, or formal language. The only point of employing the dictum seems to be to remind the designer that the chosen aesthetic solutions must support the non-aesthetic purpose an object or a result is supposed to fulfill.
An example of such a present-day unobjectionable interpretation of the dictum can be found in the Dutch designer Peter-Paul Koch's short article "Form follows function" from 2003, which (without touching upon the origin of the dictum, or its original meaning) interprets the phrase as a rational rule to be kept in mind in order to preclude formalist tendencies on the part of the designer. Koch writes: "The basic rule for any design is 'Form follows function'. If an object has to perform a certain function, its design must support that function to the fullest extent possible. This goes for industrial design and even more for Web design. (…) If the form of a Web site becomes a goal in itself, instead of a means to an end, the Web site will not work."
The dictum interpreted in this way is meaningful as an anti-formalist design precept, because this interpretation is neutral as to the kind of aesthetic or style employed, and because proper functioning is the prime concern here. Nevertheless, it can be seen as sensible and unobjectionable only because the way the dictum is understood here has, apart from using the same three words, virtually nothing in common with its original meaning. What is more, the fact that the same three words, originally coined to foster a formalist vision of pre-ordained, historically necessary modern forms, are employed today to resist the very formalism the three words introduced, encouraged, and defended, still compounds rather than dispels the confusion around the meaning of the phrase.
OK, so the whole paper is mostly about how "modernist" took the phrase and rendered it meaningless to advance their aesthetic. -I agree
This caveat is the correct interpretation of what the phrase means today. I don't much care what it meant 100 or 40 years ago.
As we see in the case of the car, form did follow function and it did produce an unique nice looking car IMO. But now where does car design go? There are only two directions. It can continue to refine this design and possibly find an even better solution or it can continue to produce the mediocre designs based mostly on style.
So should we just judge cars based on their style and not how well they function? I think anybody should have the right to drive as poor an automobile as the like. As a society though we do have some obligation to leave this world in good condition for our children. By everyone driving poorly designed cars we do not meet that obligation.
Of course it may be that we don't have any obligation toward future generations. This is a purely human concept, no other animals try to conserve and manage their environment. Maybe we should be purely natural and consume all we want because we can. This is the way evolution has always worked.
So should we live like the animals we are or the civilized beings we want to be?
_________________
Chris Stewart
Modern Texas Home Project |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SDR
millennium club
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Posts: 1716
Location: San Francisco
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 06, 2008 8:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
Read "Collapse" by J Diamond. Both man and animal are capable of unintentional eco-suicide -- it has happened many times in the past. Man is NOT the only animal to manage and conserve its environment, but he is the only one capable of mechanized improvement, and/or devastation, on a massive scale. . .
The auto achieved a very nice state of aesthetic perfection in the early 'thirties -- but perfect is never good enough ! It was at that time that manufacturers learned that they could boost sales with continuous change, and "streamlining" was born. By 1960 the American auto body had swelled to its maximum practical size and minimum practical height, and its been "rearrange the deck chairs" ever since.
Those who haven't learned from history are doomed to ignorant repetition.
SDR |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
csintexas
millennium club
Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 1919
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 06, 2008 8:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
What is an example of an animal which conserves and manages it's environment?
_________________
Chris Stewart
Modern Texas Home Project |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SDR
millennium club
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Posts: 1716
Location: San Francisco
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SDR
millennium club
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Posts: 1716
Location: San Francisco
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 06, 2008 9:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
A rainforest ecosystem is an example of natural conservation, as various plant, animal and insect species cooperate in maintaining the "built environment" in a continuing cycle.
SDR |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ArchiMotion
Joined: 31 May 2008
Posts: 315
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 06, 2008 9:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
Quote from article SDR referred to -->>
["I presume it would be a great service to the design community to avoid the three F-words altogether.]
And some still insist on using the three F-words.
Let's just stop using the three F-words altogether, and maybe then there will be no more confusion.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
csintexas
millennium club
Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 1919
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 06, 2008 9:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
A rainforest is an example of a natural ecosystem in balance. The individual players are doing their best to prosper but the entire system keeps things in check.
Man has the ability to manipulate his environment to such an extent that he can rise above this natural system. (at least for a while)
I presume it would be a great service to the design community to avoid the three F-words altogether.
I was just about to take issue with this ending statement. What could possibly be gained by excluding words and concepts? The only thing I can think of is that people with ordinary brains won't have to strain themselves by hearing views outside their own.
_________________
Chris Stewart
Modern Texas Home Project |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SDR
millennium club
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Posts: 1716
Location: San Francisco
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 06, 2008 3:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Right. Well, we can profit by the rest of that caveat. The last line is a cop-out, or an expression of the frustration at the use of such a compromised or confusing axiom (for follows you-know-what).
SDR |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
blogger
del.icio.us
digg
slashdot
