Form vs. function
The debate on form vs. function in architecture is rather an impressive debate as both notions depend on each other. One of the major dilemma faced by many architects in the modern society is id deciding what to give more attention to when designing- form or function. However, I am in the support of the notion that form should follow functionality when making a given architectural designs. In this regard, the shape of the building should be based on the intended function of that the building will serve. Therefore, form meets function in that no matter the authentic nature of a given design, it will be irrelevant if a given design does not meet it intended function. However, in the modern architecture, many architects have tried to integrate the two approaches in order to meet the needs of their clients who might want a balance between for and functionality.
In most cases, many arctectts have adopted the fallacy of form, when they think that form is more important when designing a given object. However, this is not the case based on the fact that a good architectural work is not evaluated by the mere beauty but the ability to serve it purpose. In this regard, it is true to say that the form that an architect chooses is deeply rooted to the function of the work. For instance, if an architect is told to design a processing firm building and another a hotel building, the form that each them will pick will depend on the function of the building. It is expected that the architect designing the hotel building will add more decorations to the design comparative to the processing firm building architect. In this regard, form is intended to fulfil the function of a given work.
In a detailed approach, it is true to imply that form is sometimes greatly affected by personal preference and the manner in which each individual perceive the world. Therefore, if much attention is given to form, it is evident that the architect is likely to be inclined to the manner in which he perceives the world. This gap might end up compromising the intension or the function of a given design. In this regard, function should be used as the control for form to ensure that it is not exaggerated to change the intension of a building.
It is evident that form cannot be considered alone as it is shallow and it barely represent the complexity of architecture. This due to the fact that it has the tendency of assuming the basic intension of architecture. For example, if we take a beautiful garden that is designed based on form, we might find plants buried upside down, which to some extent might ornamental and pleasing to the eyes. However, one of the basic function of a garden is to support the life of the plants. In this regard, form was achieved but function was assumed. This shows complexity of function in architect and when it is not considered before form, architecture work might prove to be rather difficult in many counts. An architect should ensure that they do not violate function on the expense of form as this has the tendency of changing the theme and the actual intention of a given design.