Sullivan proclaims in all his arguments that form follows function1 and never the
other way around, has aesthetics lost all its importance in architecture? A
larger question to be posed would be, are all forms of aesthetic beauty that
are not seen as practical in architectural design to be abandoned? A building’s
facade and its structure is a way of depicting what goes on within or in other
words the function, but does this mean that beautification acts as a skin that
hides this depiction or reduces its precedence in any manner? I am researching on the importance of
aesthetic beauty in architecture and why it shouldn’t in fact be abandoned.
Architecture is something
that has a lasting imprint on the landscape it resides in and the people around
it. To the viewer, unlike the designer, a space that has an impression on the
viewer is most definitely evaluated on the basis of its aesthetic beauty.
Design and aesthetics revolve around contrast, repetition, pattern, unity,
balance and proportion. Can these elements be achieved only using structural
elements that follow the function? An integral part of my research paper will
be based on architectural examples of aesthetics in architecture that has
meaning and also has had an impact on the theories of architecture.
The comparison between
the aesthetics and function is a very challenging as they are the most
important part of architecture. But when the aesthetics has an upper hand in a
structure it fails to have good functionality qualities like comfort, ergonomics.
1 Weingarden, LaurenS. Louis H. Sullivan and a 19thCentury Poetics of Naturalized
Architecture. Routledge, 2017.