functionalism and some problems i have with it.

The rough equivalent of functionalism in architecture was the Modern architectural movement also known as the international style of architecture.. It was rooted in the advances in material and manufacturing technologies that the industrial revolution brought just like functionalism and stressed a very similar doctrine. The similarities in these movements goes very deep through their shared ancestor, The Bauhaus. Walter Gropius originally saw the Bauhaus as a school that united craft and fine art under the roof of architecture. In the end the Bauhaus was more well known for its industrial design output but the ideas that were manufactured there went on to be a primary resource for architects as well. Unfortunately Modern architecture as a style has already reached its height and by most accounts is dead, however, Functionalism as a design ethos is still with us.

The sudden end of modern architecture came from its unpopularity with the masses. The raw, unadorned surfaces of modern architecture left people with an uncomfortable feeling, like one of those really awesome thick hand knit sweaters that is just too itchy to wear. The best example of this is the housing projects built throughout the world to solve housing shortages. At first, efficient and cheap housing stacked vertically seemed attractive but when they were tried on it was a different story. Almost all of the projects have been rejected by their occupants and have turned to slums or been donated to the thrift store. The inability for people to relate to the forms of modern architecture through vernacular or historical references became the major downfall of the Modern architectural movement. It turns out that most people have a hard time relating to forms that are reflective of machines and construction methods used to construct them. I think that as designers this is hard to swallow, for the most part we are obsessed with methods of manufacture and materials, why wouldn’t everybody want their oven to be expressive of its rivets and heating elements? Contemporary architects have had a hard time responding to this rejection of reductionism and have reluctantly incorporated abstracted decoration and adornment. Examples of this are structures by Frank Gehry and Michael Graves. Frank Gehry has abstracted his entire buildings to look like huge artichokes (Disney opera house in Los Angeles) or ships (Guggenheim in Bilbao Spain) in an effort to add interest to his otherwise Modern style of honesty through exposed beams and titanium roofing. Michael graves just added huge statues and abstracted decorations onto his Disney hotel to appease the masses.

If Mr. Graves or Mr. Gehry was a functionalist they would not be able to follow their current path. The definition of functionalism offered to us by George Marcus "the notion that objects made to be used should be simple, honest, and direct; well adapted to their purpose; bare of ornament; standardized; machine-made, and reasonably priced; and expressive of their structure and materials" (George Marcus, Functionalism, 1995, p.9.) does not offer us opportunities for decoration or narrative. According to Marcus the narrative is the process and the decoration is the material. It seems to me that strict adherence to this would lead to the same place architecture has arrived at. In fact, we may be already. Michael graves did design a world renowned tea kettle with a rooster jammed onto it for no apparent reason. Just like in buildings, people want to be able to be comfortable with their surroundings. To be comfortable with your surroundings you must be able to relate to them. This can happen through pure formal language, like an Eames molded plywood chair which can be mistaken for potato chips or flower petals or any number of organic natural forms or historical reference like a retro styled reissue of an Oysterizer blender that looks like your grandmas or through relation to a popular style like the whole boat load of hounds tooth covered fashion accessories available in the last couple of years. In the design world I often feel that these tools are looked down upon and I think that the source of this current is the modernist/functionalist talking points of honesty and standardized. The functionalist mantra simply leaves no room for the demands of stylistic reference or plain old decoration. Instead it offers the decoration of no decoration and the style of no style as a substitute. I think that the honesty in design should be in reference to an honesty of the designer and not an honesty of materials. Every decision a designer makes could have been made multiple other ways and the accumulation of these different choices becomes the voice of that artist, it is silly to offer a style of no style as a style to adhere to and an inert material as the guiding light to navigate by. I think that we may have to just admit that as humans we like ornaments and doilies and little jaguars on the hoods of our big jaguars and blown glass baby Jesus ornaments on the Christmas tree. I like to sit in the living room across from the Christmas tree to ponder the sparkly significance of each family heirloom on the tree and I think that that is a widely universal experience.

However, I’m not saying that we have to go hyper style conscious like the apparel people were the trend and style of the time is the only way one can measure the success of an object. I’m also not saying that we have to start hand engrave plumbing fixture obsessive French Rococo style. It just seems that decoration and adornment and embellishment and narrative and style are not going any place and as part of the human condition we may want to make a place for them in design because unless we train engineering geek robots to design goods for other super geek robots all on their own using only math and physics to guide their decision making process than we are never going to have truly honest design anyways.