I like to think that the reason existed that resulted in a garden as a logical form to address it. It might be that someone is interested in trying to grow plants as past time. It might be because they want to dress up their house. It might be because they put an addition on the back of the house and the walkway cut through a slope and the soil needs to be stabilized. It might be because they got a new hot tub and want a little privacy.

The form of that garden will not automatically follow function unless every decision is made with that end function in mind. Logic is followed every step of the way. Much of the time it is artistic logic that is followed. Please do not fall into the trap that logic displaces artistry, or that artistry trumps logic. They can and do coexist. When they coexist well, they are a very powerful force. When one or the other is ignored the result is lacking.

Whimsical art only inspires when there is some logic within it. Sometimes we don't see it, but it is there. When you see it you can begin to follow it. When you can follow it you can begin to understand it. When you can understand it you can apply it. That is the difference between Jackson Pollack and the sidewalk after Mardi Gras.

I don't think it is an issue of "why" but rather "how". Function implies a use - how one intends to use the garden will surely determine the form, if sufficient consideration is given. Even if the use is purely aesthetic, to be veiwed rather than interacted with, this IS the function and it too will give rise to the form.

Is there something odd about me that I find this so obvious when others, apparently, do not?

I'm with you GG. You just say it much better than I do.

An example of function. When we purchased this property in hurricane country I decided to landscape with only 'found' objects and plantings I rooted/seeded myself. This was my challenge; to create art at no cost. It has been a fun project. Four weeks ago we listed the house for sale and it sold overnight with a purchase offer stating that all garden objects and plantings were to remain with the property. My landscape efforts were recognized and go to new owners anxious to preserve them. Now I move on to a property suitable for a Japanese garden. Although I have designed them for customers I look forward to building my own. A dream for many years.

How one goes about deciding the function of a garden begins with the heart and the interior vision/creativity that sets the fingers tingling...plan to paper, shovel to soil, mind free to play. Each garden owner has different needs. To bring those needs together into a functioning whole is the landscape designer's challenge.

Given time then any space will be adapted to the use you put it to. A path beaten through the woods to where the water is drawn or a clearing where the animals are coralled, it could be a track through a pristine lawn where the postman takes a short cut. Where landscape design differs from this is in planning in advance so that in a way its form preceeds its function.

I think the problem is that the word function just sounds so dang functional!

Yep, I agree that if you look for it there's always a function in there somewhere, but the name "function" just lacks some indefinable je ne sais quoi. It has a too nuts and boltish quality, like we're going to get our screwdriver out and screw down a few plants here and nail down a shrub or two over there.

Don't misunderstand me, guys, this function thing has helped me out a lot. It just seems as though there's an immediate reaction to the term, although the concept is there underneath it all. So, maybe we need to work a little overhaul magic. Every time we're thinking function, we'll call it the hmmmm  diddlydoodoo.

Old Speak: What's the function of your garden?
New Speak: What's the diddlydoodoo of your garden?

Wellspring -- who hasn't been able to log in for a month, so I'm writing in a semi-crazed mindset

A path evolves because someone wants to go from point A to point be. Planning the path is a result of recognizing the function and addressing it beforehand. Letting the path happen is finding out that you did not understand the situation, or chose to ignore it. Keeping a path from forming where that letter carrier might go is an application in logic as well.

The whole problem is that a lot of people want to deny that most of what we do is based on logic rather than purely on artistic gift. Our society has brain washed us to believe that we are "special" if we are artistic and we are dull if we are logical. Who wants to be dull? Function is a logical word rather than a romantic artistic word. We want to be recognized as artists not technicians. The result is that we will defend any attempt to lower our artistic statice by recognizing or application of logic.

Well Andrew, "Form ever follow function" was seen as a war cry against ornamentation, although perversely gardens are often seen as only ornament. Common phrases to illustrate this : "Tall evergreens to soften the corners" "planting to match the colour of my brickwork" "a need to hide ugly foundations." "how to accentuate entrance" etc. etc. I also disagree with your statement that we have been brainwashed to value art above reason because I think the opposite is true. Using function as a guide to garden making only works if the garden is a place to be in, if on the other hand it is merely to look at, then it is a picture and other guidelines are needed.

My guess is that this hierarchy (art/reason, form/function) is based on good old Greek philosophical thought. Specifically, Aristotle. His world view classified what could be observed into hierarchical patterns.

Human beings were divided into specialized ways of interacting with the world. The most profane and basest being the physical or bodily needs and responses; next up from that, the unruly emotional "heart"; higher up the ladder again was the mind, the seat of reason and logic, which should govern actions and emotions; and above that the spiritual or divine connection.

With the rediscovery of Aristotle and other classical works, leading into the Age of Enlightenment and the beginning of science based on observation, humanity went nuts for divisions, specialization, classification. The parts of things were more important than the whole. Think Linnaeus with his botanical classifications. Once upon a time, science was a single discipline and it was closely aligned with religion. Now it is subdivided into hundreds of realms of study. Once upon a time, you went to a doctor (and he bled you, dealt with you with dirty instruments, and suggested arsenic as a tonic). Now you go to one doctor for your big toe, another to diagnose your psychosis, and yet another for your gastric complaint.

In order to process information we needed the helpful tools of disambiguation. But in our time, we have seen the strong current to integrate, to perceive our world holistically. Physicists, who once pooh-poohed the possibility, now wonder if there could be a unified theory of the universe. Those whose disciplines matured by disecting humans into their constituent parts, now point out that body, emotions, mind, and (for those who admit of the possibility) spirit are not distinguishable parts. We are whole, and to a great extent such divisions are arbitrary.

We disambiguate to distinguish this part of the process we are calling "function", and I find it helpful to a degree. It doesn't, however, explain the whole, either the whole of the form, the garden, or the whole of myself as I engage the form. Some would go that one step more and point out that we also are not outside actors imposing our will on the garden. We are, as they say, in the experiment.

Speaking on religion and science rather than logic and art, John Donne wrote, "Reason extended to its fullest almost grasps faith " There are whole universes in that one word "almost".

How, or whether, my comments helps design a garden is for others better skilled than I to determine.

Diddlydoodoo

Wellspring

Re: the comment "how one intends to use the garden (ie function) will surely determine the form".

I don't agree.

Function determines that there will be a path through the woods to the water. Just because the path will be used to get water does not determine the form. From my point of view 'form' is the type of path created ie dirt path, wood chips, stone etc. Each of these forms would satisfy the required function and therefore the function does not determine the form.

Function may limit the appropriate choices for form, making some better than others, but it does not usually determine it. So a lot of rain may make a dirt path impractical - other forms for a path would be better.

But at some point you are usually left with a wide range of options for the form.

In the case of plantings I think that function plays a smaller role in limiting options than in hardscape since there are so many more options.

Is this not what design is really about? Once the functional requirements are understood ie the technician in us is finished, real artictic design starts. In fact you can take this one step further and say that true artistic design is the process of solving functional requirements in new and unusual ways.

If one adheres to the thought processes going on when Sullivan popularized this dictum some 120 years ago, the "form" referred primarily to the shape the building took and incidentally to the materials used to achieve that shape. It is a purity of concept that once the use or function is established - in Sullivan's case, a high-density, space efficient office building - the form will follow: build vertically - the birth of the skyscraper. If one studies industrial design, this concept was further reduced to focus virtually entirely on shape to fit a defined function - so much so that the object shape became almost a limiting factor. Industrial designers nearly designed themselves out of business by adhering strictly to this concept.

So if we apply this interpretation to madtripper's path, it is the path itself that is the form arising from the function of accessing the water. That path could be straight and direct, the shortest route from point A to point B or it could take a jog here or there to skirt an obstacle of some sort. But the path itself and its location is the form generated by the function, not the materials used to construct the path. That is a refinement of the form that has both practical and artistic considerations.

In some discussions of this topic, the term 'function' is replaced by 'purpose' and I think that change can simplify the notion. If the purpose is to access water, then the form is naturally the easiest route to achieve that purpose - a path, as direct as possible. How that path is constructed is incidental to the form although the form itself may dictate material and construction; i.e., a wooden bridge over a stream, paved steps down a steep incline, etc.

In the years since Sullivan popularized this concept, it has been the fodder of endless debates and philosophical design discussions - I can remember some pretty longwinded theoretical discussions over a beer or several during my undergrad days (architecture students are SO intense!). And I don't dispute that it has morphed over time to adapt to more modern design concepts.

But the underlying precept remains the same and while not necessarily the "law of nature" Sullivan proclaimed it to be, it IS a basic design concept that still has considerable validity. To understand the purpose of the design element, its function, is to be able to easily determine the form. While this is most often applied to the shape or spatial aspects of the design or the layout, it does have similar applications to other, more refined details such as the materials or the plantings utilized.

And I do agree wholeheartedly that once the technical aspects of the form have been determined in response to the stated function, how that form is treated is where the aesthetic element comes into play. And that is what elevates basic design into the realm of artistry.

"Form follows function" seems to be most useful when you have a blank slate. Historic areas aren't as functional, but when you bring better function to the area, the history is "erased" and a lot of character/authentic tone is lost. Is this true or not?

Who says that form determines function? It certainly follows function. If there is no need to get to the water, there will be no path. The need existed before the path, but much more can go into the final form of that path all of which are functions.

If it is steep the path may meander across the slope - form following function. If it gets muddy, it may be mulched or covered with gravel - form following function. If there is a desire to make it pretty, there may be flowering plants added - form following function. If the water carrier is using a big stick over his shoulders witha bucket on each side the path may be wide - form following function. If you love wildlife it may be full of fruits and nuts - form following function. If you are into pleasing all your senses you'll add fragrant flowers, bright colors, and place it near where there might be some trickling noises from the water - form following function.

Romantic, spiritual, and sensual things are functions that so many of want to see as something that must be superior to function. Why?

"How to decide the function?"

I think that functions exist more so than us inventing them. We are left to assess which functions we value enough to address and then weight them accordingly. Then we use are creativity and artistic ability in meeting those priorities. The art is in how we address the function rather than the function itself. That art is evident in the form that takes shape.

GardenGal - I always considered Form = the artistic part. But if we follow your logic, then the expression Form follows Function should be changed to:

"Art follows Form which follows Function."

madtripper, you assign me too much credit :-) This dictum is not my creation but articulated by venerables with far more talent and perspicuity than I could ever hope to have. It is certainly open to some interpretation though, as the discussions of this thread, those long-ago architecture school bull sessions and the countless articles and essays written about it will attest to. I think perhaps you are trying to refine it too much. To me, your statement should read "form follows function = art". To achieve the best form for a specific function is in itself the artistic expression. And to some degree, this is what Sullivan and his fellows were also saying - the purity of the form that is generated from the function is the art, devoid of unnecessary ornamentation or elaborate treatment. Wright takes this even further in his discussions regarding the essence of the materials used. To create a path to the water paved with travertine marble is over the top when the path, in its rustic wooded setting, would be truer to its nature constructed of wood chips with steps of native stone.

I can't accept "form follows function = art".

If this were true we should be able to get a few very intelligent analytical people to understand the same problem, and they would each come up with exactly the same garden design.

Solving a problem on a purely scientific and analytical basis is not art. We (I include myself) scientific, analytical people might like to think it is art - but it is not.

In garden design there is so much more.

What I was trying to say is that if we use the definition you presented for form and function, there is another BIG part of design that is artistic in nature. A part that has little to do with form or function.

Whoever said that deriving form from function was a purely analytical or scientific process? And how can you possibly reconcile that notion with the work of Michael Graves, Frank Lloyd Wright or Eero Saarinen? Make no mistake about it, there is an aspect of art that is intrinsic to form. Few of us will hit it with the simplicity of concept demonstrated by the above, many more will provide some less stunning interpretation and most of us will offer mediocrity at best.

There is never a single solution. Our own intrepretation of what the function may be will temper the form as well as the dozens of other variables that get factored into the mix. How that path approaches the lake to take advantage of the view, how it angles down the slope to lessen the gradient and ease the burden of toting the water back, how it bends here to skirt that big tree or widens there to accomodate a patch of wildflowers.

I am not sure why you see the need to separate the artistic or creative element of a design from the form - art without context is merely decoration. The form a design takes, well-considered and well-applied to a properly understood and articulated function, is in itself a creative and artistic statement. The function provides the context - the form gives rise to all the other aesthetic considerations.

Why do people .... didn't I say this already? ...insist that form following function is purely a technical thing?

Take for example an automobile. Many people are passionaye about the beauty of some particular automobile or another. Let's say it is the 1958 Corvette that floats your boat. This way designed with the function of performance, road hugging ability, and very much to be aesthetically appealing. As the designers developed this car, they made sure it met these three goals. Some of it was done through computation and some of it was done through imagination. All of it was done to meet those functions head on. Nothing of it is nonlogical, yet there it is, a thing of beauty.

Art is a result. You can't get art and pour it into your work. You could get a piece of art and place it in your work, but that is another matter altogether.

Artistry is not an object. It is a method or manner of how you process your logical thinking.

The notion that "I am an artist, therefore I don't think" makes as much sense as "I think, therefore I am not an artist".

All artists think with creativity. Some think more than others.

Anyone using logic to solve a problem will use creativity in the process. Some are more creative than others.

Who can argue that a very expressive and creatively thought out logical landscape will be better than a logical landscape devoid of aesthetic expression, or one that is beautiful, yet does not solve the problems.

Logic should be applied with a great deal of artistry. Artistry should be applied with a great deal of logic.

Let's say your, or your clients, need for a garden is emotional; its purpose is to provide peace of mind. Not as specific as "I want a path through the wood to the lake" so how can we apply the same logic i.e. "Form follows Function"? The main component of 'peace of mind' is safety or security if you like, if we ignore all other considerations and only concentrate on security, in its literal sense, as the function we would design something resembling a prison yard. A stark and empty space surrounded by a high fence. Clearly there is more to it than that. As the need is emotional (and I am not using this in a negative sense) then the function, and consequently the form will be a lot more subtle. However we bounce off this basic need and whatever we suggest for the garden we should never loose sight of it. We could achieve the sense of enclosure without a barbed wire fence, the only limitation would be imagination. Otto Wagner was one of those Bauhaus Germans, he said "Something impractical cannot be beautiful" which is putting it a bit strong but if you design something to solve a specific problem and only achieve something pretty then you have failed.

"if we ignore all other considerations"
Once again, why do so many people want to believe that something thought out has to deny everything else? You never ignore everything else. It is not one form following one function. I guess that it should really be called form follows functions, but to me "function" means the cumulation of all of the things to be considered weighted accordingly to have a resulting form that matches those values. Maybe it should be "form follows weighted values" and people would understand it better.

When making an "emotional garden", which is not an uncommon set of values, do you think about muted color tones, sweet fragrances, ... and ignore everything else? I don't think you do. If you did you'd be a failure and I know you are anything but a failure.

When you are good at what you do and have done it for a long time, you process so many things so quickly that it is by rote (sp?). You don't know you ae doing it. Tony, when was the last time you thought "what is a good companion plant for a pink geranium"? You get to the point of it feeling like instinct, yet in reality you have learned what does and what does not go with it. It takes on the perception of yourself working through emotional feeling than a maturity of understanding and processing rational thought.

My father did fantastic rock gardens that everyone went gahgah over. He believed he did it by felling although he had a horticultural knowledge that would blow most of us away. Me and my two brothers worked with him doing these as we grew up. None of us could do it. Until I went to school and learned about unity, harmony, form, color, texture, and all those good things. My professors were telling me things that first seemed to go against what my father was doing. I thought they did not understand the difference between the artist and the technoscaper. When I came home to work that sumer I tried to analyze what my father was doing. After a while I began to understand how he made these things work. In the process he learned that he did use reason and his understanding of what he was working with to put these very artistic gardens together. I learned to do what he did at the same time. Then we had a lot of fun. Once he started to understand that he used rational thought and not "feel", he became a great teacher. ....this is why I go on and on and on on threads on this subject. It is something that is very clear to me because once I understood that, everything changed!

If you read the whole idea that I am expressing, viz. "if we ignore all other considerations and only concentrate on security, in its literal sense, as the function we would design something resembling a prison yard. A stark and empty space surrounded by a high fence. Clearly there is more to it than that." you will find that we are in agreement Andrew. Design theory is an attempt to quantify why something works and is a useful intellectual exercise. Working alongside someone who instinctively knows, and often doesn't feel the need to explain is a different form of education. Put the two together and Bob's yer uncle (ask your mother what it means!).

"In order to process information we needed the helpful tools of disambiguation. But in our time, we have seen the strong current to integrate, to perceive our world holistically. Physicists, who once pooh-poohed the possibility, now wonder if there could be a unified theory of the universe. Those whose disciplines matured by disecting humans into their constituent parts, now point out that body, emotions, mind, and (for those who admit of the possibility) spirit are not distinguishable parts. We are whole, and to a great extent such divisions are arbitrary.

"We disambiguate to distinguish this part of the process we are calling "function", and I find it helpful to a degree. It doesn't, however, explain the whole, either the whole of the form, the garden, or the whole of myself as I engage the form. Some would go that one step more and point out that we also are not outside actors imposing our will on the garden. We are, as they say, in the experiment."

When I wrote this earlier in the thread, I could have said:

We disambiguate to distinguish this part of the process we are calling "form", and I find it helpful to a degree. It doesn't, however, explain the whole, either the whole of the function(s) purposed for the garden, or the whole of myself as I engage the function

Since so many disciplines are covering new territory by understanding things whole rather than in parts, I wonder why we contend over these distinctions. You can no more check your brain at the door than you can leave your emotional or physical reality out of the process. It's not an either / or - it's a both / and. It also isn't a "this is better than that".

Early humans made clay pots because they were useful. It sure beat cupping your hands to carry water. Someone used her noggin to perceive this need. She thought to herself, "I sure could use something better than my hands." Then one day she saw small children playing near the stream where she had been going to carry handfuls of water back to the cave. They were squishing sticcky dirt into funny shapes. One of them, a boy of course, said, "Let's stick our shapes in the fire!"

A few days later the woman was still carrying handfuls of water back to the cave. The children were laughing over exploded clay artifacts, as some future human would call them. But one construction had formed a reasonably serviceable thingy. It didn't have a name yet, so let's call it a cup.

There by the stream a tiny child dished water up and poured it out again.

This is a parable about function and form or is it a parable about the wholeness and complexity of human beings? Or is it a story about how we interpret language and conceptual ideas?

We should never underestimate the power of play.

Have you met scientists who dream their answers to tricky formula? It's funny to hear one describe how his "elves" helped him shuffle a chemical analysis. I heard one scientist remark that he used to be extremely unwilling to admit these seemingly non-rational resources until he acknowledged that he was more than the sum of his parts.

One of the coolest things about landscape design is that it immediately engages us whole.

Wellspring