Form versus Function versus Furniture

A few days back, I had the honour of speaking with a few rather prominent architects in the Nordic regions. One particular individual who struck me as being particularly knowledgeable (as compared to flamboyant emptiness/stupidity like most designers) was this Finnish designer somewhat in the mould of Zaha Hadid. We were yakking on the topic of Form versus Function. She is a firm believer that form (meaning the design of a space/building) is there simply to suit the function (what the space is used for), or more eloquently put: form serves function.

Well, I was out tonight with dear J and somehow I gain inspiration when she’s around. It’s a good thing mind you. I’m constantly in need of ideas. Well, I’m not about to talk about her, so give me a listening ear. Although obviously I stress that I went out for the company and gave her my 100% attention. That will be the way I treat everyone else (unless you bore me to fragments).

Now that I whet your appetite, functionalism in architecture, is commonly understood that form serves function, or that the form should coincide with the function in the mode of a representative analogy or a cinematic envelope. Yet however, J and I at Coffee Bean are perfectly capable of carrying out our task i.e. talking. The building frame is simply there to make our completion of the task more probable. A truly rationalist theory relegates architecture to the position of distant cause. Form frames function, rather than compressing it in a mould or simply reflecting it like a mirror. There is an essential difference between the frame of probability and the effect that is produced within it. The difference in kind between the cause and effect prevents us from making congruent the form and function, right? Now, the rigid form of the frame simply cannot coincide with that of an effect that is always subject to variations. That is why the frame belongs to a group of autonomous forms whose principle needs to be defined.

Then, we’re back to thinking of form as form, images with no relation to depth, anteriority, use and even less to representation. Coffee Bean in this sense is simply a bunch of images/unworked concepts. Function wise, it could serve as a brothel or even an office. Now, with a simple image, how would we make a building? It takes 3 things:

1. Architecture (to make 3-dimensional)
2. Design (to beautify)
3. Planning of territories

While these three factors require different skills, they all work together with form. Think hard people, what is the united outcome of these factors? What makes a building? I propose that it is very obviously furniture. Furniture is the mobile centre that appears at the intersection of these three perspectives. Though furniture is officially classified under objects, they are actually an interior replication of architecture. I give you 3 examples:

1. The closet is a box in a box.
2. The mirror is a window that faces the outside.
3. The table is simply another floor on the ground.

What reinforces this hypothesis is that furniture, like how architecture should, is directly connected to our bodies. For our most intimate or most abstract endeavours, whether they occur in bed or on a chair, furniture is the immediate physical environment with which our bodies act and react. For instance, when a woman strips naked in preparation for sex, who touches her first? No, it’s not the man/other woman but it’s the furniture. It’s the bed/chair/car seat whatever. And before she feels the sensation of another human being’s touch, she will feel the bed sheet first isn’t?

Therefore my conclusion to form versus function is simply that FURNITURE is the key. It is our primary territory. Furniture is that image where forms are fused together. For a brothel to exist, beds are needed, not low-lighting lamps. Closer to home, for a place like Coffee Bean to exist, what is needed for J and I are simply comfortable chairs to lounge in and a coffee table to dump our stuff on. Ambience is secondary and a waste of money. There is absolutely no need for four walls because form and function equate to nothing.

So this is my million-dollar theory. I rebuff form versus function. Designers should concentrate on furniture and it’s interaction with the human body. Yes, that’s pretty convincing I reckon.

Thanks J.