ABSTRACT
The idea of a truly functional artifact, which is shorn of all expedient or incidental or pre-conceived impurities, is now the most difficult of all artifacts to construct. This is not to say that another development in naked architecture might come about, perhaps as a reaction to overdecorated buildings. — Robert Maxwell
Was there ever such a thing as naked architecture? To be naked is to be pure, with no contamination or embellishment. Architecture is always an act of compromise. That compromise cloths the architecture in the extra-functional. The notion that pure functionalism results in naked architecture was one of the core, unspoken beliefs of orthodox modernism. It presumed that “function” was static, definitive, and definable. What was conveniently forgotten was that “function” is dynamic, allusive, often immeasurable, and contingent upon the moment. The description of function is always an approximation of a particular point in time, usually well before the building is ready for occupancy. By the time the building is ready for occupancy, the functions to be housed in the building will have changed. Unfortunately, the building will not be able to adjust to the new functions very well unless it was initially identified as part of the “function” identification. To be naked is thus to be vulnerable to obsolescence due to change.
