[Richard Kimball]

On the form follows function, the minimalists may have talked the talk but didn't walk the walk. In the building that's being discussed, one of the problems is that the architect didn't have expansion joints. If form REALLY followed function, the expansion joints would have been there. In minimalist design, they HIDE the functional parts, rather than letting the function be revealed in the form. In true form follows function, there is nothing decorative, but the functional elements are exposed, and it's trusted that the functional aspect will be beautiful because it is purely functional.

In terms of form follows function, I think Amish furniture is an excellent example.

There are no purely decorative parts, but the necessary functional parts are clearly visible.

[tsomer]

That cabinet is gorgeous. But it does have some decorative elements: note the dovetails between the rail and stile in the upper doors, a dowel or splined, thru-mortise would have worked as well. Also the angle of the upper rail of the doors. These took more time.

Man yearns for more than mere function, this is the basis of minimalist’s failure.

Not sure about I.M. Pei’s failure with the Nat. Gallery. I think he he believed his structural materials would compensate for expansion. His refusal to change the design based on this experience is another matter.