Architecture, in its contemporary concept — which is usually expressed as form — commences in “idea” and ends in “building.” Architecture is therefore a process from abstraction towards objectivity. Preliminary sketches, which are abstract geometrical motifs, turn into real living spaces. Design has played an important role in architecture since the Renaissance. Wooden model, plan and elevation were means to determine the building's specifications accurately before its execution. Today, in spite of spectacular advances in the field of graphic software and virtual reality, architecture is still much dependent on design, and model-making is an inseparable stage of architectural production.
Past vernacular architecture did not need such expressive means. Each individual could build his own dwelling in accordance with his needs and based upon the cultural objective patterns he was living with. Through this process one objectivity creates a new objectivity. The building elements — doors, windows, courts and pools — were not mere forms, but meaningful presences, with a defined and specific relation to the individual's life.
Modern architecture, particularly functionalist architecture, weakened this tangible relationship for two reasons: first, by using abstract and pure formal elements — such as line, plane and volume — instead of meaningful elements, in order to make a physical rather than intellectual impression on users; and secondly, by becoming dependent on design and model in an exaggerated manner.
Both of these reasons lead us to the fact that architecture is about designing form in its broad meaning. A model, as the Encyclopaedia Britannica defines form, is isomorphic: an accurate model is formally isomorphic with a building. Form has three main and distinct components: first, elements including line, plane and volume; second, structure including axis, the grid on which the form is designed, repetition and order; and third, aesthetics including unity, plurality, harmony, contrast and so on. All three groups of indicators are presentable in a model as much as they can be realised in a building. The model is the presentation of a building's volume at a smaller scale. Today, the issues of form, and particularly volume — which has a more limited conceptual extension than form — are the main topics in architecture. Many designers seek impressive volumes to enable them to make attractive renderings and models.
The primary objective of this article is to show that architecture is an issue completely different from the topic of volume, and that dependence on design and model can be so destructive. The secondary objective is to discuss the prevalence of function over architecture and to review that method critically. The statement that “form follows function,” expressed by Louis Sullivan in the early years of the present century, has clear resemblances in steam ships and trains whose functions were compatible with their forms. Le Corbusier, who had been inspired frequently in his projects by this symbolism of modern civilisation, stated that “a house is a machine for living in.” As much as a manufacturing part was designed for a particular function, architectural elements and their relationships were to be designed in accordance with their function. Based on this approach, architectural spaces tend to become specialised and functional.
A functionalist approach has since been criticised over and over. What I intend to add is that place is more significant than function, and exaggeration in specialising spaces is a counter-value which, with no reason, extends to the volume. And one further topic is to discuss Iranian architecture as a distinct instance of space and place, which could pave our way towards the future as the antithesis of an architecture of form and function.
The second part of the article deals, in short, with a certain position taken against contemporary architecture — a position against our highly structuralised built environment. The task of an architect, similar to that of a surgeon in medical science, is to solve a problem with the least possible intervention and injury, and that can only be achieved by dealing with the main architectural elements of space and place.
The ideas expressed here are not to prove one contemporary trend over another, but to state that designing in accordance with space and place can be interpreted variously and lead to different solutions. For a certain time, the study of design methodology has been under way by the author in collaboration with Firouz Firouz and Shahab Katuzian, discussing architectural design from idea to form. The present teaching of form is confined to some backgrounds and techniques; we shall hope that the practical work of designing with the ideas of space and place may begin soon. The project our group has in hand is not to design a building itself but to deal with the main issue of an “architectural project.” Here, we want to lead the attention of the readers to issues originated in the culture of Iranian architecture, on the one hand, and related to contemporary life and its conditions, on the other. All these reflections, ideas, studies and designs, based on the two main factors of space and place, might become a new trend in architecture.
