Qing Tang

MSA Stage 2
HAUS A
16029968
Louis H. Sullivan and Form Follows Function
Word count: 1,970
In his article The Tall Office Building Artistically Considered, Louis H. Sullivan argues that It is the

pervading law of all things organic and inorganic, of all things physical and metaphysical, of all

things human and all things superhuman, of all true manifestations of the dead, of the heart, of the

soul, that the life is recognizable in its expression, that form ever follows function. This is the law.

Discuss to what extent this was a groundbreaking idea, and in which ways Sullivans own

architecture reflected this principle using three case studies.

_______________________

This essay aims to investigate Louis H. Sullivans idea of form [ever] follows function1 in his 1896

article The Tall Office Building Artistically Considered, its manifestation in his early skyscrapers,

and its impact and importance in the predominantly eclectic approach in architecture and

architectural discourse in America and elsewhere in the late 19th century.

Sullivans body of work and thinking was influenced by the subversion of the stylistic procedures

that dominated both American and European tradition at the time eclecticism, Beaux-art

traditions and neoclassicism, the revival of classicist thought. However, there had been already a

rising creative tension between two schools of thought classicism and organicism, the latter of

which would lead to modernism in the 1930s propagated by the short-lived2 Art Nouveau

movement in Europe from 18901910 which drew inspiration from the Arts and Crafts movement.

In classicist thinking, the architect is seen as an inventor and manipulator of visual language3,

drawing upon preexisting accepted forms coming from within established Tradition4 . History in

neoclassicism, a revival of interest in Greek and Roman antiquity is used as a design tool and

language to invent forms with. In organicist thinking, the architect is an exponent of a changing

1 Louis H. Sullivan, "The Tall Office Building Artistically Considered, Lippincott's Magazine, March 1896.
2 Alan Colquhoun, Modern Architecture (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), 13.
3 Ibid, 36.
4Geoff Lewis, Classical vs. Modern Architecture, DBI Architects. Accessed 9 Jan 2017, www.dbia.com/classical-vs-
modern-architecture.
technology5, severing from tradition and instead capitalising on new manufacturing processes and

materials available at the time, creating buildings that truly belong to its location and environment6.

In the late 19th century, this constant tension and opposition was a result of a dissonance between

the needs of the people and neoclassicism, the aesthetic production of the time. Theneoclassicist,

by applying traditional forms with little to no regard to its context and place, created forms that were

not appropriate for modern life7 .The new unique urban conditions characterised and created by

the onset of mechanisation, production, introduced a growing need for dense, high-rise buildings.

On 9 March 1884, Montgomery Schuyler stated in his lecture Modern Architecture that a

universal culture of architecture [] existed in Europe but was lacking in America due to the

absence of good models8 identifying a fear that neoclassicist tradition would continue to stifle

the creation or innovation of a new, democratic American architecture. The prevailing ideologies at

the time could be loosely grouped under the term American Renaissance9 :the belief that post-

Civil war, post-recession America was a successor to Roman and Greek ideals of democracy,

freedom and equality represented in antiquated forms10, and a need for security through historical

association11 . This historical continuity provided consolation in a time characterised by turbulence

and rapid technological advancement. These ideologies, reinforced by the highly culturally

suggestible state America was in and its continuing cultural inferiority complex12 to Europe,

manifested itself in architecture with the Beaux-Arts style (18851920). The founding of the Society

of Beaux Arts Architects in 1893 by, mainly, the influx of returning American alumni13 of Lcole des

Beaux-Arts (the French national school of architecture) meant that the robust, manifestly imperial

classicism14 that was taught in the school pervaded academic training programmes in American

5 Colquhoun, Modern Architecture, 36.

6 Lewis, Classical vs. Modern Architecture.
7 Colquhoun, Modern Architecture, 35.
8 Ibid.
9Jonathan Fricker; Donna Fricker, The Beaux Arts Style, Louisiana Division of Historic
Preservation, February 2010.
10 Ibid.
11 Leland M. Roth, A Concise History of American Architecture (New York: Harper & Roth, 1979), 174.
12 Fricker, The Beaux Arts Style.
13 Ibid.
14 Ibid.
universities and eventually dominated American built form the most prominent showcase of

which was the Worlds Fair exposition in Chicago of 1893. (fig. 1)

Fig. 1 Worlds Fair exposition in Chicago, 1893, with Daniel

Burnham as director of works

[on classical forms] They have been proved empirical by the sufficient logic of time; their advocates

having ignored the complex fact, that, like a new species of any class, a national style must be

growth, that slow and gradual assimilation of nutriment and a struggle against obstacles are

necessary adjuncts to the purblind processes of growth, and that the resultant structure can bear

only a metaphysical resemblance to the material on which it has been nurtured.15

Louis H. Sullivan, Characteristics and Tendencies of American Architecture, 1885.

However, the context of the new land of America, in Sullivans perspective, was not appropriate for

the formulaic grafting or transplanting16 of classical, eclectic forms that the Beaux-Arts approach

instilled instead, forms should be grown naturally, logically and poetically out of its conditions17

the essence of an organicist approach to built form. Sullivan showed distaste in the narrow

formalities, hard-and-fast rules, and strangling bonds of the schools18 , believing it to stifle and

15 Louis H. Sullivan, The Testament of Stone (Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1963), 335-336.
16 Ibid, 335.
17 Louis H. Sullivan, Kindergarten Chats and other writings (New York: Dover Publications, 1979), 354.
18 Sullivan, "The Tall Office Building.
suppress in conventional rigidity19 , the native instinct and sensibility [governing] the exercise of

our beloved art20.

This disdain for classicist indoctrination was not merely a reaction towards pure ideology and

pedagogy; it was also strengthened by the dissonance between the utility (or lack thereof) of

classical forms and the reality of the rapidly changing cultural and technological conditions of

America. The onset of a new era of technological advancement from 1876 with the telephone,

incandescent lighting, and the elevator21 ; in materials, the open hearth furnace invented in 1856

rendered steel economical enough to frame entire buildings with; created a synergetic22 effect

with the introduction of the telephone, typewriter and mimeograph into American daily culture, the

nature and volume of business communications shifted monumentally. All these factors contributed

to a large change in the architectonic requirements for businesses. With now the increasing

pressure of urban populations and intense use of land, the vertical, self-contained23 skyscraper as

a new building typology for the city seemed desirable and almost inevitable.

Sullivan also harboured a personal fascination with the potential of the new typology of

skyscraper in The Tall Office Building Artistically Considered, he states that [the] loftiness is, to

the artist-nature, its thrilling aspect24. If by employing native instinct and sensibility into creating

forms meant ridding itself of suppression of tallness that neoclasscial forms rigid, superficial,

and ultimately stagnant inevitably brought, the natural direction was real integrity. This meant a

reflection the function of the tall skyscraper, raw, organic, allowing the full tallness to be exuded

liberating the real creative power and glory of man and art.

19 Louis H. Sullivan, The Autobiography of an Idea (New York: American Institute of Architects, 1924), 360.
20 Sullivan, "The Tall Office Building.
21 Leland M. Roth, A Concise History of American Architecture (New York: Harper & Row, 1979), 173.
22 Ibid.
23 Ibid.
24 Sullivan, "The Tall Office Building.
The opportunity that innovating a completely new, blank, typology the skyscraper brought was

the catalytic beginning of a subversion of classicism leading into organic modernism. The theory of

pure design design having fundamental ahistorical principles of composition25 guided Frank

Lloyd Wrights, a student of Sullivans, unconventional and organicist architecture. These early

organicist approaches which would eventually formulate modernism were fundamental to the

teachings of the Bauhaus design school26 ;in the contemporary world, form follows function is

perceived as the motto almost dogmaof modernist architecture. In America, these ideas were

perhaps brought out more to the public eye and appreciation by Wright and the ideas of the Prairie

School27 . With the onset of early modernism in the 20th century, the organicist approach gradually

became the mainstream or, at least, widely accepted. However, Sullivans idea of form follows

function was perhaps not as aesthetically severe as the pure, geometric, machine-like forms of

modernism exuded.

It could be argued that Sullivan catalysed the eventual full movement from classicism to organicism

however, he was perhaps not so much of a catalyst but rather sown the ideological seeds for

modernist thinking that abandoned the shackles of nostalgic, antiquated neoclassicist forms.

25 Colquhoun, Modern Architecture, 51.

26 Ibid, 169.
27 Roth, A Concise History of American Architecture, 200.
Wainwight Building (18902) Tripartite solution

The Wainwright Building (fig. 2) in St. Louis was

Sullivans first application of his tripartite solution

detailed in The Tall Office Building Artistically

Considered. In his essay Sullivan listed practical

conditions and architectonic requirements (functions)

of the new social and technological conditions of urban

America and provided a broad framework in which to

Fig. 2 Wainwright Building, Louis Sullivan
express and articulate these conditions, the inner life of and Dankmar Adler, 18902

[the] building28, in the buildings exterior (form).

The basement, not articulated on the exterior, contained the plant for power, heating, and lighting.

The first section of the tripartite form housed one, stores, banks, or other establishments requiring

large area, ample spacing, ample light, and great freedom of access29, and two, a storey above

with more stores accessible by stairways. These were to be articulated in a liberal, expansive,

[and] sumptuous way, expressed with a sentiment of largeness and freedom30. This was, in the

Wainwright Building, large glazing that spanned across two cells from the divisions articulated

above.

The second section, an indefinite31 amount of homogenous office cells (accentuated by the

increased density of office workers that needed fit in one building), was [treated] in a similar way

[to the first section], but usually with milder pretension32 .The cellular nature of the office was

expressed democratically by individual openings on the faade one cell per office and in the

28 Roth, A Concise History of American Architecture, 340.

29 Sullivan, "The Tall Office Building.
30 Ibid.
31 Ibid.
32 Ibid.
Wainwright Building, these tiers upon tiers33 of offices were amalgamated by sweeping verticals

that could be read as both column and mullion. Sullivan achieved this by cladding the vertical

members in a manner that did not represent the real structure, but rather using the width of a

single window cell as the structure. The democratic, equal nature of the new office building was

represented by the equidistant spacing of an individual window representing one individual

component the worker.

The third, attic tier, housed the turning of the circulatory system of the building consolidating the

system of tanks, pipes, valves, sheaves, and mechanical etcetera34 originating from the plant

below ground. The nature of this storey meant it did not require any daylighting; Sullivan took

advantage of this by using the broad expanse of wall35 devoid of openings to highlight the

conclusion of the office tiers. The complete circle of an ascending and descending movement of

services was accentuated by the vertical articulation of elements adding to the fascinating

tallness and exultation of the building.

Guaranty Building (1895) Ornament and form

The Guaranty Building (fig. 3) shared the same tripartite

solution as the Wainwright Building, but there are several

significant differences in execution the articulation of

the third attic tier, and the rich play of ornament in the

faade.

The articulation of the third attic tier in the Guaranty was

a continuation of the vertical rhythm of the office tiers

Fig. 3 Guaranty Building, Louis
Sullivan, 1895
33 Sullivan, "The Tall Office Building.
34 Ibid.
35 Ibid.
rather than a blank wall. Perhaps this approach may have been more conducive to the idea of a

soaring and liberating tallness the vertical movement of both building and eye extends and does

not pause; perhaps it could even be a further stripping away from the reference36 to the base, shaft

and capital of a classical column that the Wainwright Building may be likened to.

The use of ornament in the terracotta cladding differed from the treatment in Wainwright Building

(where it was only mainly used on the spandrels) the textile-esque patterns (fig. 4, fig. 5) used

saturated and was integrated into the faade. Compared to the pure unornamented forms of

modernism these motifs may seem like a preservation of the eclectic, but the system of

ornamentation (form) was so deeply ingrained into the representation of different architectural

elements and programmes (fig. 5) to strip the building of ornament would mean to strip the

representation of function. Sullivan advocated for the stripping of excessive, superficial use of

ornament that was not part of the mass and individuality37 of the building.

Fig. 4 Terracotta ornament on Guaranty Building, Fig. 5 Terracotta ornament on Guaranty Building,
Louis Sullivan, 1895 Louis Sullivan, 1895

Schlesinger & Mayer Store (1904) Programme

The Schlesinger & Mayer Building (fig. 6) was of a different

brief a departmental store a programme not as familiar as

the office building. This meant that the articulation of

architectural elements differed from the tripartite solution that

36 Sullivan, "The Tall Office Building.

37 Louis H. Sullivan, Ornament in Architecture, 188. Fig. 6 The Schlesinger & Mayer
Building, Louis Sullivan, 1904
worked for office buildings.

The display windows and glazing, the most characteristic feature of a department store38 were

repeated in the same tiered, democratic manner as the cellular offices in the office building. Again,

the importance of the tallness of skyscraper was articulated through column/mullions and the

additional colonnades at the curved corner at the sides the passerbys gaze is also directed to

the large-scaled glazing, representing the equal importance of an accessible display window to all

classes of people on the street39.

By representing the internal function of the departmental store on the faade, Sullivan is loyal to his

idea and does not revert to a formulaic approach often seen in buildings at the time.

In conclusion, Sullivan believed that the very essence of the problem contains and suggests its

own solution40 rather than adhering to a rigid classical formula and language to create forms, by

innovating a new approach to contemporary conditions in urban America he provoked organicist

ideals and brought vitalising thought to a stagnant, antiquated paradigm.

38Seluk Kse, "Sources of the Exoticism in the Architecture of Louis Sullivan: the Primitive, the Oriental, the
Natural" (Master's thesis, Middle East Technical University, 2004), 112.
39 Ibid.
40 Sullivan, "The Tall Office Building.
Bibliography

Colquhoun, Alan. Modern Architecture. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002.

Condit, Carl W. The Chicago School of Architecture: A History of Commercial and Public Building in
the Chicago Area, 1875-1925. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1973.
Connely, Willard. Louis Sullivan As He Lived. New York: Horizon Press, 1960.
Frampton, Kenneth. Modern Architecture: a critical history. London: Thames and Hudson, 1992.
Fricker, Jonathan; Fricker, Donna. The Beaux Arts Style. Louisiana Division of Historic
Preservation. February 2010.
Kse, Seluk. "Sources of the Exoticism in the Architecture of Louis Sullivan: the Primitive, the
Oriental, the Natural." Master's thesis, Middle East Technical University, 2004.
Lewis, Geoff. Classical vs. Modern Architecture. DBI Architects. Accessed 9 Jan 2017.
www.dbia.com/classical-vs-modern-architecture.
Roth, Leland M. A Concise History of American Architecture. New York: Harper & Roth, 1979.
Roth, Leland M. America Builds: source documents in American architecture and planning. New
York: Harper & Roth, 1983.
Sullivan, Louis H. Kindergarten Chats and other writings. New York: Dover Publications, 1979.
Sullivan, Louis H. The Autobiography of an Idea. New York: Press of the American Institute of
Architects, 1924.
Sullivan, Louis H. The Testament of Stone. Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1963.
Sullivan, Louis H. "The Tall Office Building Artistically Considered. Lippincott's Magazine. March
1896.

Fig. 1 Worlds Columbian Exposition. The Robinson Library. 2015. Accessed January 12, 2017.
www.robinsonlibrary.com/technology/technology/exhibitions/chicago1893.htm.
Fig. 2 Wainwright Building. University of Missouri. Accessed January 12, 2017.
www.archdaily.com/127393/ad-classics-wainwright-building-louis-sullivan.
Fig. 3 Guaranty Building, 1896. Harold B. Lee Library, New York: Peter Paul Book Co, 1896.
www.flickr.com/photos/126377022@N07/14576839730.
Fig. 4 The elaborately decorated terra cotta cornice. Mary Ann Sullivan, 2009. www.bluffton.edu/
homepages/facstaff/sullivanm/newyork/buffalo/sullivan/guaranty.html.
Fig. 5 Terracotta ornament on Guaranty Building. Mary Ann Sullivan, 2009. www.bluffton.edu/
homepages/facstaff/sullivanm/newyork/buffalo/sullivan/guaranty.html.
Fig. 6 The Schlesinger & Mayer Building. Architectural Record, 1904.
www.beyondthegildedage.com/2011/12/schlesinger-mayer-building.html.