THE ARCHITECT SHALL DESIGN A FORM

The fundamental task of a designer is to design a form.  Before any problem is solved there must be a form.  

Yet, designers are seen as problem solvers.  A client may say, I want to add bedrooms, or increase the size of the living room, to my house.  Or a client may say, I want to construct a three bedroom house, with a great room, two car garage…etc.  These so called program requirements are the primary components of dialogue that we have with our clients.  In every instance, the form, be it a gable box or whatever, only enters into the dialogue later in the process.  I have yet to have a client say to us, can you please design a form for us that does this or that?  

You might say, this is a silly distinction.  Of course form is involved when you design in the physical realm: of course a building is a form.

And my answer is, the term form needs to be given top priority in our, and thus our client’s, cognition.  Forms that we design are in an intimate cultural dialogue with all the other forms in the visual world, and they are in intimate human dialogue with their occupants.  

I’ll bet that if you read thru your typical written agreements with your clients, the term form is not used once.  Attached is a partial page of a widely accepted agreement between owner and architect.  Just read the few highlighted sentences.  The term form is never used, and the term building is barely mentioned. 

How we use our language has rigid control on what we do.  Language is a mediating structure which transitions thru lexical, semantic, and motor responses.  The language at the top of the contract above is a diluted miss mash of conflicting directives.  Is it a wonder that Architects have the position they do, if their own agreements don’t embrace what architecture is really about?  

Let’s modify our lexicon.  Let’s get the term form into the equation, both with regard to those that pay us, as well as the cultural milieu.  My hunch is that we will elevate the task of the Architect.