As LouisSullivan proclaims in all his arguments that form follows function1 and never theother way around, has aesthetics lost all its importance in architecture? Alarger question to be posed would be, are all forms of aesthetic beauty thatare not seen as practical in architectural design to be abandoned? A building’sfacade and its structure is a way of depicting what goes on within or in otherwords the function, but does this mean that beautification acts as a skin thathides this depiction or reduces its precedence in any manner? I am researching on the importance ofaesthetic beauty in architecture and why it shouldn’t in fact be abandoned. Architecture is somethingthat has a lasting imprint on the landscape it resides in and the people aroundit. To the viewer, unlike the designer, a space that has an impression on theviewer is most definitely evaluated on the basis of its aesthetic beauty.Design and aesthetics revolve around contrast, repetition, pattern, unity,balance and proportion. Can these elements be achieved only using structuralelements that follow the function? An integral part of my research paper willbe based on architectural examples of aesthetics in architecture that hasmeaning and also has had an impact on the theories of architecture. The comparison betweenthe aesthetics and function is a very challenging as they are the mostimportant part of architecture.
But when the aesthetics has an upper hand in astructure it fails to have good functionality qualities like comfort, ergonomics.1 Weingarden, LaurenS. Louis H. Sullivan and a 19thCentury Poetics of NaturalizedArchitecture.