ABSTRACT
That it is not a permanent or timeless category of architecture is clear. In a sense, “form” is a concept that has outlived its usefulness. — Adrian Forty
The creation of form was the primary design goal of modern architects up to the 1980s. Although not acknowledged as such, it was the primary decorative element. Despite being invoked each time modern architecture is described, the meaning of the term remained unspecified. Was it merely another word for “shape”? If it was more than “shape,” what did that more consist of? Other than shape, the other common understanding of form comes from the Platonic notion of “essence” or “idea.” Form, in the Platonic sense, implies that there are two levels of form, the “particular” and the “ideal.” The form we confront through our senses is the “particular.” The “ideal” is the idea of the form in its unattainable perfection. Our minds merge the perceived particular form with our mental construct of the ideal form. By that action we can label the encountered form by its type, or essence. If the particular form has a cube-like appearance, it is understood and labeled as having an essence of “cubeness.” Modern architects were seldom explicit about which meaning of form was being used. For the architect it was implicitly the Platonic version, for everyone else it was shape.
