The basic difference, though, between “shape” and “form” is that “form” is in 3D while “shape” is plain 2D

Read more: Form http://www.differencebetween.net/language/difference-between-shape-and-form/#ixzz5ZSiz7t68

In some cases, forms can also be 2 dimensional.

Read the following article by Charlotte Jirousek (1995), taken from the website of Cornell university (the link included below the text):

"

[Form, Shape and Space]

Form and shape are areas or masses which define objects in space. Form and shape imply space; indeed they cannot exist without space.

There are various ways to categorize form and shape. Form and shape can be thought of as either two dimensional or three dimensional. Two dimensional form has width and height. It can also create the illusion of three dimension objects. Three dimensional shape has depth as well as width and height.

Form and shape can also be described as either organic or geometric. Organic forms such as these snow-covered boulders typically are irregular in outline, and often asymmetrical. Organic forms are most often thought of as naturally occurring.

Geometric forms are those which correspond to named regular shapes, such as squares, rectangles, circles, cubes, spheres, cones, and other regular forms. Architecture, such as this example by Frank Lloyd Wright, is usually composed of geometric forms. These forms are most often thought of as constructed or made. If you are interested in the visual possibilities of geometric forms, take a look at an index to images of mathematical origami, you might wish to look at this Web site, or at least at these mathematically generated forms.

However, not all made objects are geometric; many designed forms have irregular contours. Although this kimono is geometric in its construction, the surface design is organic in form.

Nor are all naturally occurring objects organic; snowflakes and soap bubbles are among many geometric forms found in nature. If you are interested seeing other visual examples of geometry in nature, you might enjoy looking at this site, in which patterns found in nature ,are explored.

There are some other terms commonly used to describe form and shape in composition; these have to do with what kind of representations the forms have. If we can recognize every day objects and environments, we refer to the images as being realistic, or naturalistic. However, if the images are difficult or impossible to identify in terms of our normal, daily visual experience, we may refer to the images as abstract.

There are several kinds of abstract images. Generally, abstractions are "abstracted" or derived from realistic images - perhaps even distorted--, but perhaps in such a way that the source is not immediately apparent. An example of this would be one of Georgia O'keefe's paintings of a detail from a flower. This kind of abstraction in art is sometimes referred to as an objective image -- that is, it is derived from an actual object. On the other hand, some abstract art images are based on a pure study of form, line, and color, and do not refer to any real-world object or scene. such art works are sometimes referred to as non-objective images.

Charicature is a special instance of abstraction, in which realistic images are distorted to make a statement about the people, places, or objects portrayed. This is probably the kind of abstraction we are most familiar with, as it is constantly presented to us via all sorts of popular media. However, it is important to remember that had not the more difficult-to-understand conventions of abstraction in the fine arts not broken ground with experiments in distortion, we would not be able to make sense out of some charicature images. A century ago, there was really nothing equivalent to our modern cartoons.

Our perception of shape and form are affected by several factors. The position or viewpoint from which we see an object will emphasize or obscure certain features, and therefore affect the impression it makes. As you can see in this series of photographs, all featuring the same wooden artist's mannequin, the character of the space around the object can distract, focus, or alter our impression. A cluttered background tends to diminish the importance of the object, while a plain background draws attention to it.

The character and source of light also changes the perceived character of the object. Lighting in a photographic portrait, for example, can make the subject look older, younger, dramatic, or rather abstract.

-Two Dimensional Form

Two dimensional form is the foundation of pictorial organization or composition in painting, photography, and many other media. It is created in a number of ways.

It can be defined by line, in all the ways described above. Line, either explicit or implied, provides the contour of forms.

Value (the relative lightness or darkness of a color) can also define form. Strong contrasts in value within a composition may define the boundaries of forms. Gradations of value, or shading, can also create the illusion of contour and volume.

In the same way, hue contrasts and gradations can also define forms. Form may also be defined by change in texture, even when hue and value remain essentially consistent. However, most typically, form is defined by a combination of these factors, as is the case in this print by Max Ernst.

-Form in relation to positive and negative space

Forms and shapes can be thought of as positive or negative. In a two dimensional composition, the objects constitute the positive forms, while the background is the negative space. For beginning art and design students, effective use of negative space is often an especially important concept to be mastered. This exercise in cut paper required the student to work with the same composition in black on white and white on black simultaneously. This makes it difficult to ignore the background and treat it as merely empty space. The effective placement of objects in relation to the surrounding negative space is essential for success in composition.

Some artists play with the reversal of positive and negative space to create complex illusions. The prints of M. C. Escher (click on Picture Gallery, then Symmetry) often feature interlocking images that play with our perception of what is foreground and what is background. Other artists take these illusions of positive and negative images to even greater lengths, hiding images within images. Perception of form and shape are conditioned by our ingrained "instinct" to impute meaning and order to visual data. When we look at an image and initially form an impression, there is a tendency to latch on to that conclusion about its meaning, and then ignore other possible solutions. This may make it hard to see the other images. Training the eye to keep on looking beyond first impressions is a crucial step in developing true visual literacy."

http://char.txa.cornell.edu/language/element/form/form.htm

In architecture, and in Spanish, there is not such a discussion. We have the same word; forma for both. But ,when reading texts in English, I always thought that shape was used for strict geometry and the word form appears when many other factors ( function/location/access/structure) are involved in the discussion or process that adresses to a certain final shape. Form is in constant mutation. Shape is the result.

Shape vs Form

What is a form and what is a shape? Well, it can easily be explained by saying that “sphere” is to “form” while “circle” is to “shape.” Yes, this is basically true. But to architects and those who master formal art, there are many other elements and concepts to consider. “Form” and “shape” define objects situated in space. The basic difference, though, between “shape” and “form” is that “form” is in 3D while “shape” is plain 2D. The latter is simply defined by lines. “Shape” is thus described by virtue of how many sides it has and to some degree by its angular relations. There is a clear and well-defined border. Conversely, “form” details further (although vague) the area bordered by the lines created.

For more detail, read the following link: http://www.differencebetween.net/language/difference-between-shape-and-form/

Any nomenclature has to be put in context. Depending where you look onto, shape is often used as a more generic term for any geometry, or also sometimes defining a specific, well-defined instance. Form comes often with a kind of iconographic background.

But as said before, the context is important.... Thus I do not believe there is a satisfactory answer to your question. I strongly oppose those who indicate that shape aöways is 2D and form is 3D - as this is some convention done by someone... but neither a distinguishing aspect nor any formalization of what-so-ever.

Forms basically are any real physical object. While shape is the 2D abstract of the forms.

Shape like a human who was deid but form like a human who is live.

Many answers here saying similar things. Form is a 3D configuration of mass. Shape is defined as a 2D space within a contour.

I agree with all the replies but think of the specialised use of shape and form in architecture and engineering where form has a more formal (sorry about the pun) connotation to do with structure describing and determing the underlying structure of the building, bridge or whatever, such as tunnel form, timber, steel or concrete frame. They constrain the way that the edifice can be designed and built. The shape could be the form say bent into an L shape. Architects like Zaha Hadid almost blend the two concepts together with their parametric designs. Happy Christmas one and all.

The term often arises from the notion of archetype,and architecture is often discussed as form because it is related to archetypes which in some cases are differentiated due to typological function.

For example I can speak of the KLCC tower as shape,the shape is tall and cyclindrical with a stupalike roof,but I can also say the KLCC form which then automatically relates KLCC to all the similar shape highrises or the form of the high-rise.Thus form is related to a function or phenomena while shape merely speak of the outline or physical profile and do not related to shapes or precedents before it.

As others said its about 2D and 3D differences. I have a paper about clustering interior forms that may help (Article Application of AI methods in the clustering of architecture ...

thanks Tizouiar Ouahiba Aryan Shahabian Adelaida del Puerto García Faris Ali Mustafa

thanks Mehdi Azizkhani

thanks ,

Grant Gover , Mehdi Azizkhani , Kawar Salih , Zanwer Jawhar , Derek John Clements-Croome , Grant Gover

thanks , Shireen Jahn Kassim , maryam banaei

Form emerges out of a system of construction.... Louis I. Kahn

For example, my recent book

Modernity,Nation and Urban Architectural form .Palgrave McMillan .not shape ..

Thank you for the recommendation..I hope it help u in your research

التوفيق ان شاء الله

would you explain more?

In answer to Mohammad Anvar Adibhesami if it helps I know that when I lectured in this area to do with engineering, construction management, architecture etc students often found it difficult to differentiate between the two concepts of shape and form. They seem similar and indeed do overlap. Previous answers have covered this from different perspectives. I personally start from a practical point of view with form as from a structural point of view, what form of construction is going to be adopted, what does the client want, how much can one spend, what materials are available, what technology and so on. It may be a concrete framed building with plate floors, then the shape is sort of limited a bit, possibly rectangular in plan shape, rectinear. The shape seems to come after the decision on form. But, in modern fast track design and construction when structure, design, cost and so on are integrated then the possibilities seem to open up—incidentally, and so does the cost. Two good examples of shape and form being integrated are with the architects Frank Gehry and Zaha Hadid and their open curviform shapes. Hope this helps just a bit.

thanks Grant Gover

In architectural fields, form is a term that implies an outcome of a long drawn design process. Form is almost sacred to architecture. see L Peter Kollar's Form. shape is merely the variant of an archetype. it is a range of the outward profile. There is an essential 'form ' of a horse..but there could be many variants of shapes of horses.

Form is very central to architectural process as architects would like to assert that they really thought out all the variables to come to the final 'form/ Literally, in architecture, when we refer to shape, it is a surface and immediate description of some structure, but 'form' is used in a deeper meaning, as the outcome of the design process itself is form. For example, is the famous maxim

does form follow function? or function follow form.

Architects discuss in terms of form , because it is a long drawn out process of producing buildings and designs

Thats why they are paid highly!

To put it simply form informs or creates the shape. If you look at the etymology of the terms, form creates a particular shape.

I agree with Somi.

With respect to architecture and its processes,form is an archetype..its the outcome of a process in which empirical and emotive considerations merge

"God create man in the best of form"

There is an essential type to the human form. Based on this form,there are infinate number of shapes.yet based on a central,essential model.

Kollar (1987)has said that the search for form is sacred and any evergreen and great architecture is in fact a perfect fit between form.and its socio cultural and ecological environment

I am with this simple example to understand the difference between shape and form.

Shape refers to two-dimensional artworks like paintings.

Form refers to three-dimensional artworks like sculptures.

shapes and forms can be expressed in 2d or 3d respectively in terms of visual connection and representation. they be plain or solid in terms of massing