Arthur Erickson

[mx2]

I think what can be extruded from this is that should one seek greater inspiration, one cannot stop at function alone. And because function is such a basic element, it is difficult to ascend to a higher place of mind in order to "discover" great ideas so it's best to break from the chains of this false idolatry and embrace the endless possibilities...

mx2.5

[mx2]

Thank you SDR...sincerely! After reading smut after rot, this was the most refreshing reading I have enjoyed in a loooong time. Fantastic speech by Erickson! This ought to be mandatory reading for all students of Architecture, young and old...

mx2.5

[csintexas]

My take was just the opposite, but I guess if you are speaking to a bunch of architects it is best to tell them what they want to hear.

[SDR]

A man can only really know his own side of the fence.

It's natural -- like FFF ?

All we can do is try to imagine how the other guy could think as he does, and assume he is sincere -- as we would hope he could do for us.

[Hour of Inspiration is over; there's coffee and cake in the Family Room.]


SDR

[mx2]

right Chris...you're point is far more logical than the architects about architecture, including Erickson and Frank Lloyd Wright as well...

when speaking to a bunch of whatever, how about talking about something that is succinct and valid.

the world is not flat.

mx2.5

[djswan]

[djswan]

[usarender]

So now we have a swan flying in and dropping Texas bombs? I wonder where those TB bombs are really being manufactured. Does their form follow their function? Or are they more like chemical weapons?

[djswan]

[WalkerARCHITECTS]

Mr. Erickson is correct, at least in the aggregate he has captured the truth of it. Architecture is light and surface in physicalness, but it is the space that is the point of it. Architecture should serve the spirit of man, mark his time and place and proclaim his nobility. Speculation in search of profit can not feed the human appitite for art. Where are we going?
Thank You Arthur!

[csintexas]

I just want to meet one of these architects Erickson is talking about that doesn't care about space only surface. I want to see these buildings in Europe and Japan that are supposed to be so much better because the work force is less specialized.

There is no substance in this whole speech just the same sort of winning we often here from architects these days about how the society has gone to hell and if we would just let the "real" architects design freely all our problems would be solved.

[usarender]

The Erickson article and speech should not be despised, as some are attempting to do, along with Frank. Why is it that some of the greatest architects or architectural ideas of recent times end up being so upsetting to some? Is it they feel other professions and trades have more fair definitions of architecture? It is the non architects, the trades people who seem to be placing the strongest arguments in favor of FFF and against FLW. Or some would attempt to re-write history, and despise some of the greatest figures to whom me pay the highest respect and who are worthy of great honor. If someone should look at Falling Water and claim it is a piece of junk, truly they cannot be considered architects in any sense. It is only a pity that some have such views while the majority of architects, designers and scholars recognize Mr. Wright and his achievements. There are a few, sadly, who would rather step over his image, tarnish some of his greatest achievements and go on to utter at full cry FFF! It becomes a march for image denigration, a united effort to defame and attempt to bring back to life a modernist cry that was the highest reaction against the eras that preceded it. It was and is nothing more then that, a reactionary cry.

[SDR]

With all due respect, "we're only building what they ask for" is the defense of those who won't take the risk of leading. A responsible, not to say generous and principled, professional will seek to pursuade his client to build something better than he had in mind -- for his own good, and for the general good. The professional, in any field, is in the position to use his knowledge and experience to lead his client in a healthy and profitable direction -- to satisfy not only the stated requirements but to solve problems the client was not aware of.

Wright did that, and his clients thanked him for it, ending up with houses that continued to grow in value and which showed more than a few what they had been missing in a home. It is nothing to be proud of to say "we're only building what they want." The world is filled with the sad results of that rationale.

I can't figure out what the difference is between "form follows function" and "form and function are one." Is it like "which came first, the spam or the egg ?" ?

SDR

[mx2]

It is not too ironic that the builders and engineers would lead the charge against design philosophy and reject them all as simple rhetoric...the age old "if you can't swing a hammer, you don't know diddly squat".

Architecture was always and foremost about the space it encloses but the Po-Mo rejectionist stance aligned perfectly with the eaxct issues the general public has grown to throw back at all architects: superficiality.

The difference between FFF and F+F = 1 is simply in the methodology of designing, the way one approaches the design. Form follows function automatically begins with programming and schematic layout based upon careful analysis of the programmatic requirements; something that is quite commonly done in offices today. F+F=1 examines the nature of the project to unveil the programmatic requirements that are then carefully ananlyzed and tested against the original concept....

mx2.5

[csintexas]

Building what people want is not a defense it is a reality. People are not as easily persuaded as some people like to think. Considering Wright lead Martin to a pulper's grave I don't consider him a good example.

Exactly it is all about how you approach the process of design.