An intro-duction
PURPOSE, FUNCTION, USE
the Trinity
Where there are subjects there are motives. An art piece, as an object, while always bearing a motive, can be autonomous of Function. The artist, having the purpose of say "self-expression", can delegate the designation of a function to the beholder, which registers it in the moment of the initial critic. Architecture, however, is not an art form, but rather a form of design. It is the price of architecture -on all its different embodiments- that creates a threshold that blocks all non-utilitarian assertions. To this end, buildings and cities as their agglomerations, always posses not only a purpose but also functions.
The two terms became omnipresent in architecture at least since the era of High-Modernism*. Yet, the distinction between purpose and function have grown increasingly impaired. The fault may lay in the tendencies of Modernist design to objectify the "plebs" by discarding their purpose-setting nature in favor of standardization. Otherwise, the meaning might have been simply lost in translation: In the '30s to '40s, the conversation in the architectural field was mainly held as dialog in either English or German. And so, purpose / Zweck and function / Funktion has often been translated interchangeably. For example, In 1948, Sullivan’s "form follows function" was translated into German as "Form ergibt sich aus dem Zweck" (closer to form follows purpose). Going the other way around, Ludwig Mies van der Rohe’s exact use of the term Zweck in his 1924 Baukunst und Zeitwille became "function" in the translation.
​
Be as it may, we will give our definition of these terms, followed by a third, equally important - Use. Consequently, we will turn the design method from a static waterfall type to an informed, agile, closed-loop; for only by interacting with an object can we determine whether its physical function really suits the intended purpose.
​
* Notable figures of High-Modernism: Jean-Nicolas-Louis Durand, Carlo Lodoli, Gottfried Semper, Eugene Viollet-le-Duc, Louis Sullivan, Frank Lloyd Wright, Adolf Loos or Hannes Meyer
Purpose requires a purpose setter aka a subject. We must recognize that each stakeholder has an agenda; whether they stand on the supplier side of the aisle (funding body, designers...) or the recipient (customers, citizens, end-users...). The purpose of subjects from across the aisle, or even on the aisle as oneself, is forever beyond complete understanding and anticipation.
C
E
W
Z
As opposed to Purpose, Functions are independent of an intending subject. Taking after the biological definition of an organ, a "part" receives its meaning through its function*, as part of a larger environment (system, organism...). As such, parts enter into action-reaction or cause-effect situations and thus create parts-whole-relationships.
​
*Not to be confused with its usage
​
F
U
N
K
T
I
O
N
ZWEC
FUNKTION
+
ZWEC nested in FUNKTION nested in ZWEC
A subject and its devised means and purposes can constitute an environment in which different functions take place.
When a subject is regarded as an environment it at once plays a part in a larger environment; while not to the extent of objectifying it. Hence, the dichotomy between propose and function could be an interplay between different scales in a fractal fashion.
USE
Use refers to how subjects interact with the physical form of the building as an object. It reveals as much about the quality of an object as it does concerning the individuals or groups of people who activate it. Consider this, somewhat crude example, given by the satirist Karl Kraus after Adolf Loos. He wrote:
​
"Adolf Loos and I–he, literally and I, grammatically–have done nothing more than show that there is a distinction between an urn and a chamberpot, and that it is this distinction above all that provides culture with elbowroom."
Karl Kraus,1913 (Translation as quoted by Janik / Toulmin , Wittgenstein's Vienna, 1996, p.89)
Given the formal similarities between the two objects, the grammatical difference between them lays completely in the realm of usability; for, strictly on a formal level, they possess an equal potential of usability. This potential is the chief factor in determining the effectiveness of design since User-Object interaction will always remain, to some extent, unpredictable. In this regard designing for possibility triumphs over direct congruence with the brief. This notion of use is interestingly absent in most of the twentieth-century architecture (i.e Modernism) while it was ubiquitous to twentieth-century philosophy. It manifested most aptly by Martin Heidegger’s two most basic neologisms, Present-at-hand (Vorhanden) and Ready-to-hand (Zuhanden). Harman digests it like so:
"Equipment is not effective ›because people use it‹; on the contrary, it can only be used because it is capable of an effect, of inflicting some kind of blow on reality. […] In each instant, entities form a determinate landscape that offers a specific range of possibilities and obstacles".
Graham Harman, 2002, Tool-Being: Heidegger and the Metaphysics of Objects, p.20
​
After collecting a suitable amount of observations of User-Object interaction we can perform a Fitness test; which verifies the congruence level between the functional brief and the Purpose (event-structure).
Use operates under three premises:
To have a Function, an Object does not have to function.
If an Object fails to carry out its Intended Purpose it malfunctions.
If an Object fills more than Intended Purpose it’s a Multi-tool.
"I'll teach you differences"
King Lir, William Shakespeare,
​
Act 1: scene 4
When we analyze the function of architecture itself, there are various plausible arguments. However, a true occurrence of a statement, even if it's many times correct, cannot suffice for proof. The only consistent solution which is always true, is Partitioning: This is the action of establishing (grafting) and canceling (flattening) of hierarchies; figure vs. ground, floors vs. walls, landscape vs. city, center vs. perimeter, serviced vs. service areas, indoors vs. outdoors, circulation vs. dwelling, office vs. residential, signifier vs. meaning, etc. What this means is that architecture can not be seen as strictly a problem-solving device because is solving problems that cannot be formulated before they have been solved. As Piet Hein pointed out -The shaping of the question is part of the answer. The same logic projects onto the process of design :
Architecture encapsulates a range of conditions from abstraction to complete consolidation. Keeping this hierarchy in mind we can move up and down the project ladder by using three simple questions: why what and how?
Adapt or Die
The construction industry has had an instrumental role in shaping early modern project management. The "Waterfall" approach, where one passes from one project milestone to the next in a linear fashion, started as a natural reaction to the field's rigid regulation and the high cost of change. In the mid-'50s, it was migrated as a template for the emerging computer industry and was propelled by its rapid growth. By the mid-'80s, Waterfall has become the industry standard in many businesses. But, the old model was beginning to squick. Since a Waterfall workflow is one-directional, once the Requirments had been laid out in the first stage, they can not be changed. This means that any adjustments to the workflow, due to for example a changing market or consumer needs, demands to restart the entire project from the first step. So its either you never ship, or simply end up with poor product-market fit.
That is why the computer industry has since seen an explosion of new kinds of more adaptive, flexible project management frameworks (Agile, Lean, etc.) - while the building industry had stagnated in the past 70 years. Why is that?
Indeed the art of construction hasn't advanced substantially - Auguste Perret would feel at ease in most contemporary construction sites. However, the fissure between the art of planning and that of execution widens by the day. From the drafting boards to early CAD software, BIM, Parametricism, and AI, the architect has become less of a master builder and more of a master planner. This gap will nevertheless be closed again with the aid of automatic construction - in the next decades we will be able to translate 3d digital representations into physical manifestations faster and cheaper than traditional construction (a process that has already started with 3d printing and robotic assembly).
​
Its time to kiss the static, non-validated predetermined requirements goodbye and move towards a dynamic, tested, adaptive project Purpose and Means.
