simplifying, but why?
Simplicity reduces things to the essence, but this is not its priority in design. The foundation of simplification in design is based on Vitruvius’ principles and Industrial Revolution is its milestone.
Centuries before Europe, division of labor
- as a primitive mass production - was practiced in China. The Venetian
Arsenal (1104) also operated similarly to a production line, but it is industrial
manufacturing that is associated with simplification. After Industrial
Revolution (1760), mass manufacturing supplanted craftsmanship, and Ford's
methods (1913) were quickly adopted by other industries. Assembly lines
necessitated the standardization of affordable goods to the average person. Therefore,
simplicity occurred. Peter Behrens, Raymond Loewy, Louise Sullivan are the
pioneers who address it as a functional way of design and production.
Form (ever) follows function. (Sullivan, 1896)
The major use of tall buildings was office
work, as a byproduct of the Industrial Revolution. Sullivan argued that the
exterior form should reflect this new function. Frank Lloyd Wright followed him
and stated: “Simplicity and repose are the qualities that measure the true
value of any work of art.”
Simplicity was redefined as ‘ornament being
a crime’ (Loos, 1908) and later ‘the house being a machine for living’ (Le
Corbusier, 1927). Adding ornaments is considered a waste of time since they eventually
become obsolete. In addition to art movements like De Stijl (1917), The Deutscher
Werkbund (1907) was a design association embracing this approach. Influenced
by both this association and Peter Behrens, Walter Gropius founded Bauhaus
(1919). The school adopted the idea of designing clean, simple, functional.
In retrospect, simplicity reduces design to
a single optimal form, but it also inhibits product differentiation. Signifiers
are perceptible cues to easily discover how to interact and simplification causes
the absence of these signifiers. The designs which are only made to function, do
not function in this sense.
Louis Sullivan's “The Tall Office Building Artistically Considered”, a 6-page contribution to the March 1896 issue of Lippincott's Monthly Magazine
ReplyDelete"Whether it be the sweeping eagle in his flight, or the open apple-blossom, the toiling work-horse, the blithe swan, the branching oak, the winding stream at its base, the drifting clouds, over all the coursing sun, form (ever) follows function, and this is the law."
"...an indefinite number of stories of offices piled tier upon tier, one tier just like another tier, one office just like all the other offices, an office being similar to a cell in a honey-comb, merely a compartment, nothing more."