Against form follows function An Essay by Andrea Resmini andrearesmini.com I cannot get past the fact that any *designer* who throws that phrase around matter-of-factly, as in “of course form follows function”, comes out as a complete ignoramus. An ignoramus who's not just repeating an 1896 “law” without any clues as to what it means but who also, most poignantly, demonstrates to possess no knowledge of what has happened in design and architecture since Sullivan and Adler contributed to inventing the high rise building and, by extension, much of the world we live in. Useless work on useful thingsForm follows functionForm follows failure formfunctionarchitecture
The core assertion Sitting there in the Whitney's coffee shop, Irwin pointed through the glass wall up at the play of shadows on a building facade across the street. "That the light strikes a certain wall at a particular time of day in a particular way and it's beautiful," he commented, "that, as far as I'm concerned, now fits all my criteria for art." At the terminus of Irwin's trajectory, when all the nonessentials had been stripped away, came the core assertion that aesthetic perception itself was the pure subject of art. Art existed not in objects but in a way of seeing. Lawrence Wechler & Robert Irwin, Seeing Is Forgetting the Name of the Thing One Sees The Gifted Listener: Composer Aaron Copland on Honing Your Talent for Listening to Music beautyart