Eyes that do not see — Kari Jormakka on Functionalist theories. Part 2
Kari Jormakka’s new book “Eyes that do not see” is an analysis of the origins and the contemporary state of functionalist theories in architecture. Among the topics he touches upon are: the functionalists relationship to authority, their proximity to philosophical essentialism, and the question of their longevity and their alleged continuing success today.
Blog-post part 1 was about “Eyes that do not see” an article by LeCorbusier published in 1923 as a part of “Vers une architcture”. It served as the name patron to Jormakka’s book. In part 2 I want to give an overview of the extensive theories and positions covered in Jormakka’s book: What was it that Corbu & Co were blind to?
… the grand stair case of the ocean liner Aquitania — Le Corbusier heavily utilized the ship’s exterior for his argument in “Vers une architecture”.
Usually competing architectural theories cannot be measured in terms of their success in solving problems. It is very often the case that both the problem and the solution only make sense if one already agrees with the theory. [p.13]
The arguments and counter-arguments in Jormakka’s book are numerous and thorough. I want to touch on only three positions from the book, that were especially interesting to me: Since this blog is about the position of aesthetics in the architectural discourse, one argument is on the relationship the functionalists had with beauty. The second point of Jormakka’s argument that I found especially provocative is the functionalist’s proximity to the philosophy of essentialism, which is significant because it demystifies modernism in architecture as a direct explication of enlightenment. The third point I am going to present from Jormakka’s book is his questioning of the term function. Starting with the last point:
1. Function, Program, Cause, and their true expressions are what the functionalists seek. They argued that there is only one perfect shape to one problem, and it will become more and more reduced and perfected in the object’s evolution. However, the function of an object is an ambiguous thing: Looking at the evolution of the car Corbu acknowledges that there are two types of cars — race-cars for speed, and limousines for comfort. Jormakka points out that “people buy cars not only to move fast or comfortably but also to impress their neighbours, improve their own self-image, invest money, etc.” [p. 232] This becomes especially apparent when listening to car designers such as Chris Bangle, who talks about design sensibilities of the facial expressions of a car’s front and back.
Jormakka names also another of Corbu’s favourite objects — the glass bottle. Which today has been challenged not only by plastic, but also by card board bottles and cans. And besides being a container for liquids it has acquired additional social or sentimental value when containing French wines. Jormakka then extends his analysis to Corbu’s statements on the essential factors of human happiness to uncover hidden ambiguities within Corbu’s own thinking and designing.
2. Because of their believe in the true expression of a building’s function, Jormakka argues functionalists were followers of the philosophy of essentialism. Comparing functionalist manifestos and texts with writings from Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas Jormakka points at parallels between the functionalist thought of various modernists — Hannes Meyer, Hilbersheimer, Mies, Corbu,and Alvar Aalto among others — and that of the philosophy of essentialism. To me this was especially provocative: architecture’s modernism is an expression of reactionary thought? This also explains Corbu’s continued referencing of ancient architecture from Athens and Rome.
To underline his argument Jormakka looks at the work of neopositivist philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein who is also considered the architect of the Palais Wittgenstein in Vienna and thus is often used as an example of modernism as the expression of new thought. Jormakka however parallels his building and his writings on Culture and Value with essentialist aphorisms. In an extensive analysis of the building’s sequencing and especially the hidden structures in the section drawings’s poché, he uncovers the essentialist dogmas that drove Wittgenstein’s meticulous design decisions — from hanging ceilings to the swinging directions of the building’s doors.
3. Beauty: Form follows function. Considering the ambiguity of the term function, it becomes easy to question the aesthetic argumentation made by functionalism. However, there are three aesthetic principals that Jormakka points at that I think are of significance still today:
One consequence of form follows function is the drive for clarity (hence the love for white walls), this lead to an appreciation of reduction in expression, and to a criminalisation of ornament. The second point is the rejection of style — because form follows function there must not be any epochal style any longer — all objects must have an appearance related to their cause or essence rather than an appearance related to prevailing fashions. This explains seemingly contradictive statements by Mies, that I’ve come across: Mies, who could be considered the father of international style, was at the same time vehemently rejecting the existence of any such thing as an international style. Until this day, I would argue, has the term style kept these negative connotations to a great degree due to modernism’s condemnation of style (plus critical developments in art theory).
The third consequence of functionalist aesthetic dogmas was that they embraced repetition. Repetition was not conceived of as an artistic draw back, or lack of creativity but as an indication of perfection. The repetition or copying of a form was a sign of achieved functional beauty, and a symbol for community spirit. The ultimate conclusion of form follows function is that…
… functional beauty is best when one doesn’t take any notice of it at all. This position, of course, implies that objective beauty is totally divorced from any experience of beauty: in fact, the consciousness of something as beautiful would count as evidence against its having achieved perfect functionalist beauty.
[ p. 160]
