C R I T I C A L E S S A Y
A.C
II.I
TOM EDDISON
33270964
A.C
II.I
2
Contents
“Has Louis Sullivan revolutionised modern architecture in the way he thought he would?� References
Illustrations & Further Reading
4-8
9
11
3
Louis Sullivan is one of America’s best known architects. However, it is only in more recent times that he has attained such recognition for his works. During his lifetime Sullivan was criticised for his egocentricity. He was known to be very stubborn; he didn’t like to alter his projects to suit clients. In Louis Sullivan and the Polemics of Modern Architecture, author David Andrew states that “[Sullivan’s] relations with clients were often not good, and those with his colleagues were usually worse, (…) he found it difficult to acknowledge his dependence on the ideas and creation of others; and his familiarity with the practical matters of architectural construction was not expert.” (Andrew. D, 1985) The high regard in which he is usually held today is largely due to his pioneering work in the conception of the skyscraper, a “crucial contribution to the development of modern, “progressive”, architecture.” (Andrew. D, 1985) In an article first published in 1896, Sullivan coined the phrase ‘form follows function’. Since then this saying has become the mantra of modern architecture, and has sparked countless debates regarding its true meaning and legitimacy. What this essay will attempt to establish is what prompted Sullivan to devise his infamous aphorism, whether it is a logical statement to make, and ultimately ask whether Louis Sullivan has revolutionised modern architecture in the way he hoped he would.
A.C
II.I
4
Sullivan studied architecture for only one year at MIT, Michigan. He worked as a draftsman for various firms until 1879, when he was taken on board by Dankmar Adler, one of the best architects of tall commercial buildings of his day. Whilst Adler was a proficient structural engineer, he felt he lacked the artistic sensitivity desired for his projects. Sullivan was thus employed to design façade and ornamentation. (It seems ironic that Sullivan was initially employed to design ornamentation for buildings considering he is nowadays often referred to as the ‘father of modernism’, a style made famous by its distinct lack of ornamentation!) Adler and Sullivan became partners in 1883, and Sullivan continued to work primarily on façade design until the firm collapsed in 1895 over a disagreement with Adler. Sullivan held an egotistic view that Adler’s role in the firm was inferior to his; he came to believe that “the main purpose of Adler’s work was to provide him with a base on which he could develop his own style of composition and ornamentation, which were to him the exclusive components of architecture.”(Menocal. N, 1981)
5
It was a year after this split when Sullivan wrote his most famous article, The Tall Office Building Artistically Considered. The original derivation of ‘form follows function’ comes from Sullivan’s description of ‘the tall office building’, later to be known as the skyscraper. He claimed that the design of the skyscraper was a ‘natural result of an all-pervading law.’(Sullivan. L, 1896). This new style would be a reflection of what he considered to be his awareness of nature’s processes of creation, and indeed his analysis of forms in nature was influenced by the popularity at the time of Charles Darwin. He eventually concluded that “all things in nature have a shape, that is to say, a form, an outward semblance, that tells us what they are. (…) Unfailingly in nature these shapes express their inner life, the native quality, of the animal, tree, bird, fish, that they present to us; they are so characteristic, so recognisable, that we say, simply, it is natural it should be so”. Sullivan clearly believed that his dictum followed the laws of nature; however it is hard to compare his beliefs to the Darwinian explanations of natural selection. After all, evolution does not follow the ideal of form following function, rather the opposite in fact. Evolution is mechanistic; it arises purely from incidental mutations in offspring which produces variations in their genetic makeup, which in turn dictates their ability to adapt to their environment. These genetic variations could be either beneficial or A.C
II.I
detrimental to the offspring, but arise through no cause of their own. After a long line of beneficial mutations we start to see a design-like process emerging. So Louis Sullivan, despite all of his analysis of nature, despite all of his contrived transcendentalist philosophies, despite his conclusion that “whether it be the sweeping eagle in his flight or the open apple-blossom, the toiling work horse, the blithe swan (…) form ever follows function, and this is the law. (…) It is the pervading law of all things organic and inorganic, of all things physical and metaphysical (…) that life is recognisable in its expression, that form ever follows function.” (Sullivan, L. 1896) is surely mistaken. Paradoxically, if modernists today were to follow the true mechanism of nature as Sullivan believed he was doing, we would instead start not from function in order to attain the only logical form belying such function, rather we should look at existing forms and attempt to evolve them to suit our required function.
6
So, we are aware of why Louis Sullivan devised his dictum. We can also state now that his conclusion was illogical. Now we must ask whether Louis Sullivan has revolutionised architecture in the way he thought he would. He believed that with the conception of his aphorism would come an end to the formalist styles of architectural past. There was to be no more stylistic design approaches such as the gothic and classical styles and revivals, but a new anti-formalist design principle arriving with the new machine age. Machines epitomised function for the modernist movement; their efficiency and simplicity of performing tasks coupled with their utilitarian forms made them a perfect analogy for modernist architecture. Thus, the modern movement adopted Sullivan’s notion that form should follow function. As stated in The Failure of Modern Architecture, “[modernism] defined ornamentation as anti-modern and thereby made it non-essential.”(Brolin. B, 1976). Once it had a firm footing, the modernist movement exploded across the globe. The 1920s saw a staggering growth of new movements stemming from the machine aesthetic of modernism: De Stijl in Holland, Purism in Paris, Constructivism in Russia and Hungary, Expressionism and Utopianism in Germany, Dada and Surrealism in various large cities including New York. (Jencks. C, 1985) Sullivan’s hopes had been fulfilled.
7
We know that the notion of form following function was a reaction to previous ornamental styles of architecture, with emphasis on the formal constraints of the gothic and classical styles and revivals. It was Louis Sullivan’s intention to pioneer a new antiformalist style with the coming of the machine age. We know that Sullivan’s conclusion was illogical. Despite my conclusion that form should not follow function in the way that Sullivan laid out, it is still regarded as a vital method of design. However, I find it saddening that architects today cannot look at a site and simply build a house. There is a constant need to analyse and extract problems from the surroundings which will in turn ultimately dictate the form of the building. We are constantly looking for problems to solve, even if there may be none apparent. Sullivan’s dictum then, has been both a blessing to modern architecture, and a curse to modern design.
which would irrevocably seal the fate of modern architecture; there is not a modern building today that does not abide by at least one of Corbusier’s five points. So, whilst Sullivan helped to create a revolutionary new style of architecture, in doing so he also created the very thing that he hoped to abolish.
In conclusion, I believe that Louis Sullivan did indeed revolutionise modern architecture, though not at all in the way that he had hoped. Not only did Sullivan fail to end the reign of formalism, he rather initiated a new era of formalist design based upon his infamous dictum that form should follow function. The architects that followed after Sullivan (Walter Gropius, Le Corbusier, Ludwig Mies van der Rohe) became the new dictators of modern architecture. In 1926, two years after Louis Sullivan’s untimely death, Le Corbusier devised his 5 Points of Architecture, A.C
II.I
8
References 1.
Andrew, D (1985). Louis Sullivan and the Polemics of Modern Architecture. USA: University of Illinois Press. p7.
2.
Menocal, N (1981). Architecture as Nature - The Transcendentalist Idea of Louis Sullivan. USA: The University of Wisconsin Press. p43.
3.
Sullivan L. “The Tall Office Building Artistically Considered.� In: Athey I., ed. Kindergarten Chats (revised 1918) and Other Writings. New York 1947: p202-13.
4.
Brolin, B (1976). The Failure of Modern Architecture. USA: Cassell and Collier Macmillan. p33-34.
5.
Jencks. C (1985). Modern Movements in Architecture. 2nd ed. Middlesex, England: Penguin Books. p34.
9
A.C
II.I
10
Reading Jencks. C, Modern Movements in Architecture, Penguin Books Wines. J, De-Architecture, Rizoli International Publications Brolin. B, The Failure of Modern Architecture, Cassell and Collier Macmillan Publishers Pevsner. N, The Sources of Modern Architecture and Design, Thames and Hudson Sullivan. L, The Autobiography of an Idea, Dover Publications Sullivan. L, The Public Papers, University of Chicago Press Sullivan. L, Kindergarten Chats and Other Writings, Gallery Press Andrew. D, Louis Sullivan and the Polemics of Modern Architecture, University of Illinois Publications Menocal. N, Architecture as Nature – The Transcendentalist Idea of Louis Sullivan, University of Wisconsin Press Willis. C, Form Follows Finance, Princeton Architectural Press Grillo. P, Form, Function and Design, Dover Publications Van Zanten. D et.al, Louis Sullivan – The Function of Ornament, Penguin Books http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendentalism http://www.prairiestyles.com/lsullivan.htm http://www.core77.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/002786.html
11
A.C
II.I