Form follows function - Part I

Easter weekend was fun. My family and I spent a fantastic weekend in Philadelphia. Despite being one of the oldest cities in the US, I found the buildings in Philly very pleasant to look at. The entire city was laid out in a lovely grid pattern - and all the buildings seemed to be in pretty good shape despite their age.

However, Philly has some of the strangest collection of sculptures that I have ever seen in my life. The strangest of them perhaps being the Clothespin located bang opposite the lovely City Hall. Designed in 1976 by Claes Oldenburg, the Clothespin was apparently meant to be a jibe at the form of the City Hall tower also seen in the picture to the left..


There are so many other weird sculptures strewn all over the city as captured by a photographer here. I for one am really puzzled as to what purpose these sculptures provide other than perhaps a opportunity for a photo-op for curious tourists. 


I feel that some sculptures may seem visually appealing, but really are not easy to understand for the common man. Sculptures should have some relevance and significance to the their location. 

Take for example, the world famous LOVE sculpture located just a few blocks away from the Clothespin. Although not originally created for the city of brotherly love, this sculpture is very easy to appreciate and relate to.


This brings me to my main talking point - why do we architects give more credence to design that only has shock value over another that is simple and easy to comprehend?


As students, we are pressured into thinking more about the concept and form of our designs rather than the function they are expected to cater to. We are tricked into spending too much time worry about how something will look. Often this comes at the expense of  the functional aspect of design. In my next few posts, I will illustrate this with more examples from the past and the present. Do you feel that architects today believe in the concept of form follows function or vice versa?