Link between Function and Form

As a landscape architecture major, we are taught always to look at the purpose a space serves or find the potential reason for the space. The area outside an office building should not only serve as an entry way, but it should be accommodating for people to gather. A space’s purpose can set the mood or intention of the space. According to Plato in the “Phaedo” and the “Timaeus”, all these spaces would have to be designed, since technically nothing exists without being designed. However, Aristotle refutes this theory, stating that not every final cause involves a designer. An example would be a mutated moth that is grey as opposed to white, thus gaining the advantage of being camouflaged and causing the moth population as a whole to evolve into a grey color. The new moth was not designed but because the mutation benefited the population, later generation adopted it.
This all can be related to landscape architecture in the way that the field itself is revolved around the concept of both design and nature, form and function. It bridges the gap between the two concepts. Landscape Architects use elements of nature (trees, flowers, shrubs, grass, etc) to create a design. These elements that are the basis are often times themselves not designed (similar to the moth). When a landscape architect utilizes these elements, he can never be sure of the outcome because its unpredictable how the branches of the tree will grow or how many flowers will bloom. This is where a final cause looses its design aspect and nature takes over. With landscape architecture, a great deal involves function but form certainly cannot be overlooked. I think the line between form and function become blurred in this profession since there is no specific order in which function or form comes first rather it’s constantly taking into consideration the two ideas simultaneously.