Posted by  Paul Malo on March 26, 2002 at 10:17:42:

In Reply to:  Re: is art VERSUS functionalism?! posted by Issi on March 26, 2002 at 09:51:17:

I doubt that many critics would question the role of function in architecture--it has been regarded as one of the three basic components since the time of Vitruvius. What was implied in the quotations, I think, was the notion that "functionalism," was the EXPRESSING of "function" (in the utilitarian sense). What was criticized was the supposed proposition that such functional expression was the sole, legitimate intention of architecture.

This narrow notion of "functionalism" was perhaps more supposed by non architects than by designers to be characteristic of "Modern" architecture, the movement that waned in the latter twentieth century. But that widespread understanding of modern architect was misinformed. As mentioned, the great modern architects were all "non-functional" (or "ultra-functional).

You are right. If a designer is unconcerned with function, he or she may be a graphic artists or a sculptor, but not an architect. But if a designer is ONLY concerned with function, he or she may be an industrial designer or engineer, but not an architect.

Responses:

Post a Response -