Both of theme are valid, in my opinion. Because, on the one hand, same function can be inserted into different forms; and, on the other, inside the same form you can insert different functions. So, it's only a false dicotomy you can exaggerate depending on your (ideologic) interest(s).

Dear Uma

This is a good lead question. It seems to me that in the tick-tock between form follow function or function follow from something is missing. Perhaps it can be said that function and from - or form and function, are not first principle issues and they alternate being second and third principles or visa-versa.

So what would be the first principle? From philosophical point of view it seems that the cause or the reason of the form and the function of any building or structure would be a first principle issue.

Therefore I suggest that maybe a current formula that can be considered here would be: CUASE - FUNCTION - FROM or CUASE - FROM - FUNCTION

hope is add a little to the discussion

Erez

PS: As a side issue consideration, the term Functional Medicine can be evaluate here also.

Function vs. Form is a bit like the chicken-and-egg problem in that you are trying to place these ideas on a timeline and decide a causal relationship.  This is made challenging when considering the ideas in a vacuum.   Instead, the ideas are not in a vacuum and exist in a larger environment.

For example, if we consider the chicken-and-egg problem in the context of the environment, we have to consider how a form survives by finding food sources and avoiding predators.  With the assumption that the environment imposes these competitive forces on the form, then the surviving and evolving form is the one that has the best 'fitness.'  This suggests that what could be called a chicken came first because it has the ability (function) to flee from predators while the egg does not.  On the other hand, the egg develops without requiring an external food source.  But the egg requires warmth and protection from the chicken.  This debate continues often with evolutionary processes of variation and selection being invoked and an attempt to look back in time.

With regard to design, function and form coexist and which one is emphasized first depends on the design environment.  Variation is the mechanism for producing many form variants and creativity can be very important.  Function requires a selection process that decides fitness to the task at hand and a scientific method for judging fitness is needed.  Due to the dependence on environment, what is an optimal balance between form and function can change when the environmental conditions change (design, regulations, manufacturing, management, cost structures, material availability...). There is no vacuum, so some of the burden in design is knowing the current environment.

I'm an industrial designer and as such I work in the conviction that form follows function, but this is not a single path circuit. There are always several ways to get a function. If for instance you want to connect two wooden blocks then glue, a dovetail connection, a screw, a nail, ... will all do the job and these solutions are not even remotely alike. Still they all obey to form follows function. Another thing is that function is not always what seems to be declared. A ceiling in a church at 30 meters height does not serve the function of giving people a roof over their head since no human is that big. But it serves the function of showing the people inside how big god must be. A balustrade in wrought iron will serve as protection and separation. The ornamental curves, leafs, etc. serve as a disguise of the structure, to make it nice and acceptable. Again there is more than one function in the form.

The only time I see a "function follows form" is when people find a use for the things in their environment. Stone age people found stones that were hard enough to support a blow and that fitted in their hand and so "invented" stone tools. They gave a function to the form. In present days you would drive a screwdriver in the ground, attach a string to it to mark the boundary where you want to dig and that way attach a new function to the form at hand.

Designer: Form follows Function within the Environment

Operator: Function follows Form within the Environment

Perhaps the classic quotation to answer your question is Sir Winston Churchill just after the Second World War in a debate about rebuilding the British Houses of Parliament.  Some wanted a new circular debating chamber but Churchill who excellent in debate wanted the old opposing benches....he won.   He said we shape our buildings and then our buildings shape us.

from an engineering point of view form definitely follows function, however, this is often, arguably mostly, trumped by socio-political/economic considerations which then dictate that function follows form,

this was expressed in various naval treaties in the early 20th century, at one point the Kaiser remarked that in Germany they decide how big a battleship they want and then build a suitable dock for it, in Britain the opposite was said to apply, the government had said how large a dock they were prepared to build and the navy had to adapt its requirements to this

this is a point Alex missed, the 30 foot high ceiling was more often the result of a desire to overshadow a rival church that only had a 28 foot ceiling than it was to that God is so much bigger than any human

The first city in the world was Jericho in the Jurdan  valley, in which the first few buildings were four round barns and a tall tower.  The tower was alighted with the tallest mountain on the west side so that on the winter eqiunox day when the sun goes down it will cast a huge shadow. What was the real function of that first tower??

it might be a good question to add here...

if the function follow form , what fornm is it ? can we say that ? Or why this particular form ? if the speech in the abdurd , we are looking for a job for this form , for eatch function there are one form suitable successful than othres , and therefore ,form results of / from the function .

Function follows Form.

for me it’s like the chicken and the egg–we have to ask which came first, the form or the function?   the form existed before the function. It was the form that stimulated the imagination and the concept of use, which then steered to the function.

In genetics and physiology, generally the form dictates the function. I think this could be argued for the built environment as well...Yes, we can design spaces in order to nudge people's behaviours, however the best design of a space will come after observing people in various "habitats" and redesigning based on their preferred/most efficient/effective patterns of use. I do wonder about this chicken and egg question in terms of organizational structures and systems.

experience of martial arts lead me to make an interesting observation on this in terms of the built environment Melanie, some years ago while conducting a combat display in a reconstructed Iron Age village I sustained a cracked elbow. For the rest of the weekend this did not result in any major problems due to the design meaning I did not hit my elbow on surfaces very often. Once I'd returned to the modern world the angular nature of everything meant I was constantly hitting the injured area. This lead me to wonder whether or not cultures where such injuries might be expected tend to adopt softer more curved architectural forms than those with more sedentary populations.

Form and Function are one