Kindergarten Chats

Kindergarten Chats

Louis H. Sullivan

Contents

01Function and Form ; 11

02Function and Form ; 37

;

FunCtion and Form

01

12

You were going to tell me more about language,

13

and you—

No I was not.

I began to tell you something about function and form, when you interrupted; and that is what I am to do now.

That is so; we didn’t finish, did we?

Wecanneverfinish.Wemaytalkforlong,andgetonly a start; but it will be a right start, I believe. We may, perhaps, see where the end lies, but it will be and remain likeastarinthesky,unreachableandofunknown distance;oritwillbelikelifeitself,elusivetothelast- -evenindeath;oritwillbelikeaphantombeaconona phantom stormy sea; or as a voice, calling, afar in the woods;or,liketheshadowofaclouduponacloud,itwill glide,diaphanousandimponderable,floatinginthestill air of the spirit.

14

What’s that you are talking about?

15

The interrelation of function and form. It has no beginning, no ending.

It is immeasurably small, immeasurably vast; inscrutably mobile,infinitelyserene;intimatelycomplexyetsimple.

16

But you surely told me to listen, not to the words, but to the thought. How can I follow, if you are always thinking away ahead of the words?

You seem to take delight in it.

17

theform,oak-tree,resemblesand expressesthepurposeorfunction, oak;

theform,pine-tree, resembles and indicates the function, pine;

the form, horse, resembles and is the logical output of the function, horse;

the form, spider, resembles and is the tangible evidence of the function, spider. So the form, wave,lookslikethefunction, wave;

theform,cloud,speakstousofthefunction, cloud;

the form, rain, indicates the function, rain;

the form, bird, tells us of the function, bird;

That is true.

Iwillspecify:Now,itstandstoreasonthatathinglookslikewhatitis,and,viceversa,itiswhatitlookslike.Iwillstophere,tomakeexceptionsofcertainlittlestraight,browncanker-wormsthatIhavepickedfromrose-bushes.Theylookedlikelittlebrown,deadtwigsatfirst.Butspeakinggenerally,outwardappearancesresembleinner purposes. For instances:

18

19

the form, eagle, is the function, eagle, made visible;

theform,beakofthateagle, thefunction,beakofthat eagle. And so does the form,

rose-bush,authenticateitsfunction, rose-bush;

theform,rose-branch,tellsofthefunction, rose-branch;

theform,rose-bud,speaksforthefunction, rose-bud;

theform,full-blownrose, recitesthepoem,full-blownrose.

And so does the form, man, stand for the function, man;

the form, John Doe, means the function, John Doe;

theform,smile,makesusawareofthefunction, smile;

so when I say:

a man named John Doe smiles,—we have a little series of functions and forms which are inseparably related, and yet they seem very casual to us.

IfIsay,JohnDoespeaksandstretchesout his hand, as he smiles, I add a little to the sum of the functions and the forms, but I do not affect their validity or their continuity. IfIsay,hespeaksungrammaticallyandwith a lisp, I merely modify a little the form your own impressionsaretakingasyoulisten; if I say, that, as he smiled, and stretched outhishand,andbeganspeaking,withalispandungrammatically, his lip trembled and a tear formed in his eye,—are not function and form moving in their

20

21

rhythm, are you not moving in your rhythm while you listen,amInotmovinginmyrhythmasIspeak? IfIaddthat,ashespoke,hesankintoachair,hishatfellfromhisrelaxingfingers,hisfaceblanched, his eyelids drooped, his head turned a little, have I done more than add to your impression and my sympathy?

I have not in reality added or detached; I have not made or unmade;

Ispeak, you listen —John Doe lived. Hedidnotknowanythingorcareanythingaboutformor function; but he lived them both; he disbursed them both as he went along through life. He lived and he died. You and I live and we shall die. But John Doe lived the life of John Doe, not of John Smith: that was his function and such were his forms.

And so the form, Roman architecture, means, if it means anything at all, the function Roman;

the form, American architecture, will mean, if it ever succeeds in meaning anything, American life;

theform,John-Doearchitecture,shouldtherebesuchan architecture, must mean nothing, if it means not John Doe.

I do not lie when I tell you John Doe lisped, you do not lie when you listen, he did not lie when he lisped; then why all this lying architecture; WhydoesJohn-DoearchitecturepretenditisJohn-Smitharchitecture? Areweanationofliars?

Ithinknot.That we architects are a sect, a cult of prevaricators, is

22

23

anothermatter.Andso,inman-madethings,

the form, literature, means nothing more or less than the function, literature; the form, music, the function, music;

theform,knife,thefunction, knife;theform,axe,thefunction, axe;the form, engine, the function, engine.

And again, in nature, the form, water; the function, water, the form rivulet, the function, rivulet; the form, river, the function, river; theform,lake,thefunction, lake;the form, reeds, the function, reeds; theforms,flyabovethewaterand bass below the water—their related functions;

and so thefishermanintheboat; and so on, and on, and on, and on—unceasingly, endlessly, constantly, eternally—through the range of the physical world—visual, microscopic, and telescopic, the world of the senses, the world of the intellect, the world of the heart, the world of the soul: thephysicalworldofmanwebelieveweknow,andtheborderlandofthatworldweknownot—thatworldofthesilent,immeasurable,creativespirit,ofwhoseinfinitefunction all these things are but the varied manifesta-tions in form, in form more or less tangible, more or less imponderable—a borderland delicate as the dawn of life, grim as fate, human as the smile of a friend—a universe wherein all is function, all is form:

24

25

wherein all is function, all is form: a frightful phantasm, driving the mind to despair, or, as we will, a glorious revelation of that power which holds us in an invisible, a benign, a relentless—a wondrous hand.

My goodness! What a light that throws on the bank!

Whatbank?

You know.

26

27

Bankmenobanks—thathasneitherformnorfunctionhere—but listen: Likeseesandbegetsitslike.Thatwhichexistsinspiriteverseeksandfindsitsphysical counterpart in form, its visible image; an uncouth thought, an uncouth form; a monstrous thought, a monstrous form; a thought in decadence, a form in decadence; a living thought, a living form.

Light means light — a shadow means eclipse.

How many shadows do men cast!

How many live in shadows!

Howmanywalkindarkness!

How many struggle in their night!

How many wander, all forlorn,

in the verge of Death’s deep valley!

Howmanyaremiredintheblackpit!

How many drag others thereunto!

Great is the light that shines. Profound the shadow that Man casts upon his own spirit! Opaque and moribund that man who gives forth, notalight,butashadowinhisdailywalk.A dense, material, moving phantom, he, who stands before the sun and puts his art in obscuration! Stand out of my light! Stand out of our light!

I say!

Platoons of dead men! Thisisthedaywhenstrikesthehouruponhighnoon,withinacloudlesssky! Avast the sun! Avaunt, the clay that doth eclipse it! Shall the hour sound, andnomananswercheerilyitscall?Shallthesunshineandnoflowerbloomingladness?Shallthejoyousheavensfindnoanswertotheirsmile,butsullenturbidstares?

28

29

It cannot be, it shall not be: forofthewildernessI’llmakeasongofspringthatshalldispelitsgloomywintryskiesandicysnows,andmakeawaketosweetrejuvenancethelark,thesoaring,singinglarkthatdothabodewithinthehearts— of all the young!

That’s fine!

Although it looked pretty dark at one time, especially for the claymen.

Do you often have these fits?

If you do, telephone me so that I can get around in time to hear the next one.

30

By the way, what has become of function and form in the shuffle?

31

Idreamedagain.ButthistimeIawaketothatofwhichI dreamed—the charming reality of your own proper person, your wit and your ways. My dream was its own function; the words, its audible form.

Form in everything and anything, everywhere and at every instant. According to their nature, their function, someformsaredefinite, someindefinite; some are nebulous, others concrete and sharp; some symmetrical, others purely rhythmical.

Some are abstract, others material. Some appeal to the eye, some to the ear, some to the touch, some to the sense of smell, some to any one or all or any combination of these.

But all, without fail, stand for relationships between the immaterial and the material, between the subjectiveandtheobjective—betweentheInfiniteSpiritandthefinitemind.

Throughoursenseweknowsubstantiallyallthatwemayknow.Theimagination,intuition,reason,arebutexaltedformsofthephysicalsenses,aswecallthem.For Man there is nothing but the physical; what he callshisspiritualityisbutthemostexaltedreachofhisanimalism. Little by little, Man, through his senses, divinestheInfinite.Hishighestthoughts,hismost

is there then form in everything?

32

33

delicate yearnings arise, through an imperceptible birth and growth, from the material sense of touch.

From hunger arose the cravings of his soul. From urgent passions have the sweetest vows of his

heart arisen. From savage instincts came the force and powers of

his mind. All is growth, all is decadence. Functions are born

of functions, and in turn, give birth or death to others. Forms emerge from forms, and others arise or descend from these. All are related, interwoven, intermeshed, interconnected,interblended.Theyexosmoseandendosmose.

Theyswayandswirlandmixanddriftinterminably. They shape, they reform,

they dissipate. The respond, correspond, attract, repel, coalesce, disappear, reappear, merge and emerge: slowly or swiftly, gently or with cataclysmic force—

from chaos into chaos, from death into life, from life into death, from rest into motion, from motion into rest,

fromdarknessinto light, fromlightintodarkness, from sorrow into joy, from joy into sorrow,

from purity into foulness, from foulness into purity, from growth into decadence, from decadence into growth.

All is form, all is function—ceaselessly unfolding and infolding—and the heart of Man unfolds and infolds

34

35

with them: Man, the one spectator before whom this drama spreads its appalling, its inspiring harmony of drift and splendor, as the centuries toll and toll the flightofbroad-pinionedTime, soaring, frometernity to eternity: whilethemitesucksthejuicesof the petal, and the ant industriously wanders here and there and here and there again, thesong-birdtwittersonthebough,the violet gives her perfume sweetly forth in innocence.

All is function, all is form, but the fragrance of them is rhythm, the language of them is rhythm: for rhythm is theverywedding-marchandceremonialthatquickensinto song the unison of form and function, or the dirge of their farewell, as they move apart, and pass into the silent watches of that wondrous night we call the past.

So goes the story on its endless way.

FunCtion and Form

02

38

It seems to me that I could have gotten a clearer idea of your recent harangue on function and form, if you had used half as many words. Still, I think I catch your meaning after a fashion. The gist of it is, I take it, behind every form we see there is a vital something or other which we do not see, yet which makes itself visible to us in that very form.

In other words, in a state of nature the form exists because of the function, and this something behind the form is neither more nor less than a manifestation of what you call the infinite creative spirit, and what I call God. And, allowing for our differences in education, training, and life associations, so that we may try to see the same thing in the same way, what you want me to understand and hold to is, that, just as every form contains its function, and exists by virtue of it, so every function finds or is engaged in finding its form.

And, furthermore, while this is true of the

every-day things we see about us in nature and in the reflection of nature we call human life, it is just as true, because it is a universal law, of everything that the mind can take hold of.

You are “arriving,” as we say.

39

Well, I suppose of course there is some application of this to architecture?

Well rather. It applies to everything else, whynottoarchitecture?

40

But there must be a definite application of the theory. What is the application?

Can’tyoufigureitout?

I suppose if we call every building a form—

You strain my nerves—but go on.

I suppose if we call a building a form, then there should be a function, a purpose, a reason for each building, a definite explainable relation between the form, the development of each building, and the causes that bring it into that particular shape; and that the building, to be good architecture, must, first of all, clearly correspond with its function, must be its image, as you would say.

Don’t say good architecture, say, merely, architecture;

Iwillknowwhatyoumean.

41

And that, if a building is properly designed, one should be able with a little attention, to read through that building to the reason for that building.

Go on.

42

Well, that’s right for the logical part of it; but where does the artistic side come in?

No matter about the artistic side of it. Go on with your story.

But—Never mind the buts.

Well then, I suppose if the law is true of the building as a whole, it must hold true of its parts.

That’s right.Consequently each part must so clearly express its function that the function can be read through the part.

43

Very good.

Butyoumightaddthatiftheworkistobeorganicthefunction of the part must have the same quality as the function of the whole; and the parts, of themselves and by themselves, must have the quality of the mass; must partakeofitsidentity.

44

What do you mean by organic?I will tell you, later on.

Then if I am on the right track, I’m going to try to keep on it. It’s rather fun to do your own thinking, isn’t it?

Yes, it is: and rather good for the health and the happiness.

Keep on, and some day you will get the blood to your brain. If the surge is not too sudden, you may yet

become a useful citizen.

I overlook your sneer, because I am interested in what I, myself, am saying. I would observe in passing, however, that you are not any too considerate. But, to go on: If it is true of the parts in a larger sense, then it must be equally true of the details, and in the same sense, isn’t it?

In a similar sense,

45

yes.

Why do you say similar?

Because I mean similar. The details are not the same as the parts and the mass; they cannot be. But they can be and should be similar to the parts and to the mass.

Isn’t that splitting hairs?Ifthereweremoreofsuchhair-splittingitwouldbewellfor our architecture.

Why so? I don’t understand.Becauseitssignificancerevertstotheorganicqualitywhich I mentioned to you. There is no limit to the subdi-visibilityoforganicthinking.

46

And what is the difference between logical thinking and organic thinking?

A world of difference. But we haven’t come to that yet.

Then, I infer, I can go on and consider my detail as of itself a mass, if I will, and proceed with the regular and systematic subdivision of function with form, as before, and I will always have a similarity, an organic quality—if I can guess what you mean—descending from the mass down to the minutest subdi-vision of detail. That’s interesting, isn’t it? The subdivisions and details will descend from the mass like children, grandchildren and great- grandchildren, and yet, they will be, all, of the same family.

47

That’sthefirstenliveningwordI’veheardyousay.

48

Well, it’s catching, you know.

I begin to get an inkling now of what you meant by the “voice, calling, afar in the woods.” Perhaps, too, some of the little seeds are coming up and will need watering by and by.

49

Yes, yes. Very good as far as you go. But I wish to warn you that a man might follow the program you have laid down, to the very last detail of details, andyethave, ifthatwerehismake-up,a very dry, a very pedantic, a very prosaic result. He might produce a completely logical result, so-called,andyetanutterlyrepellentone —a cold, a vacuous negation of living architecture— a veritable pessimism.

How so?

Simply because logic, scholarship, or taste, orallofthemcombined,cannotmakeorganicarchi-tecture.Theymaymakelogical,scholarlyor“tasty”buildings, and that is all. And such structures are either dry, chilling or futile.

Well then, tell me now, in anticipation, what charac-terizes a real architect?

First of all a poetic imagination; second, a broad sympathy, humane character, common sense and a thoroughly disciplined mind; third, a perfected technique;andfinally,anabundantandgraciousgiftofexpression.

50

Then you don’t value logic.

Ithasitsexcellentuses.

But cannot everything be reduced to the syllogism?

51

Sothetextbookswouldseemtoclaim;yetIshouldnotwish to see a rose reduced to syllogism; I fear the result would be mostly syllogism and that poetry would “vanish with the rose.” Formal logic cannot successfully deal with the creative process, for the creating function is vital, as its name implies, whereas the syllogism is an abstraction, fascinating as a form of the function, so-calledpurereason;yet, when subordinate to inspiration, it has a just and high value. Isaythereisalogicoverandabovebook-logic,namely, the subconscious energy we call imagination.

Nevertheless, formal logic has its purpose and its place.

Then you do prize logic?

I surely do.

It is a power of the intellect; but it has its limitations. It must not play the tyrant.

52

By the way; you were to explain the word organic.

53

You have a memory— which shows that you are following and, still better, anticipating my argument. I had for the moment overlookedtheitem.

Butwewilltakeitupnexttime, when we may discuss it leisurely.

I think this is great sport.

So do I.

Designedby;SunHyueBaekPrinted in December, 2011

Paper; Daytona Laser Cover 60lbFont;ITCFranklinGothic&Baskervile