The Presence of Form
Aform between spectra.
The architecture
The art
The design
Essay by: Guilherme Falcão
In an abstract sense, today 'form' has an ambiguous definition; it has no specific size or shape.
"For example, the differentiation of a spoon within the category of spoons. The term 'spoon' designates a form having two inseparable parts: the handle and the bowl. A spoon implies a specific design, small or large, made of silver or wood, shallow or deep. Form is 'what,' design is 'how.' Form is impersonal, design depends on the designer. Design is a circumstantial act, depending on the money available, the location, the client, the extent of knowledge. Form has nothing to do with circumstantial conditions. In terms of architecture, it characterizes the harmony of spaces suitable for a specific human activity." Revista arquitectura, n74, P.24
Form
Form of the House
Form to make a way
Form square
Form from space
Form of living
Form to live
Form to distribute
The life ofForm
Form to consider
Form plastic
Transform aForm
Form to transform
Form to dream
GiveForm
Form abstract
Form regulated
Form concrete
Materialize aForm
Carve oneForm
Form of the building
Form traditional
Form Modern
Form
The word form, when it is uttered, appears to have its intrinsic definition.
“What is form, is form…”, in fact, everything is form: from the way of doing, to the way of living, to the form of things. From the abstract, to the intellectual form of premeditating or acting; created by the hand of Man or printed by nature, where figures, repetitions, symmetries appear, in which Man, when interpreting them, uses his mathematical and physical knowledge to understand them. Others, artists, use them, intellectualized, combined or impressive organic forms. Other than being so beautiful, Man contemplates them natural, virgins of himself.
“Not only does all activity allow itself to be discerned and defined as it takes shape, as it inscribes its curve in space and time, but life also essentially acts as a creator of forms. Life is the form, and the form is the way of being of life.”
FOCILLON, Henri. The life of forms. Art and Communication, Lisbon, 2016, P.10
Over time the word had different appropriations and only from a certain moment did it make sense to relate it to architecture. The term began to be applied in philosophy, perception of aesthetics and later in art; despite the beginnings of the formal gesture being a translation of the utilitarian object into its aesthetic enhancement.
In ancient Greece, Plato assumed that form is superior to things made in its likeness. Form was something deeper than matter. It was the geometric shapes that gave reason to everything
“Plato proposed that geometrical figures, triangles and solids underlay the substance of the world.”
FORTY, Adrien. Words and Buildings: A vocabulary of modern architecture. Thames and Hudson, New York, 2000, P. 149
“Take for example a perfect triangle, as it might be described by a mathematician. This would be a description of the Form or Idea of (a) Triangle. Plato says such Forms exist in an abstract state but independent of minds in their own realm. Considering this Idea of a perfect triangle, we might also be tempted to take pencil and paper and draw it. Our attempts will of course fall short. Plato would say that peoples’ attempts to recreate the Form will end up being a pale facsimile of the perfect Idea, just as everything in this world is an imperfect representation of its perfect Form. The Idea or Form of a triangle and the drawing we come up with is a way of comparing the perfect and imperfect. How good our drawing is will depend on our ability to recognize the Form of Triangle. Although no one has ever seen a perfect triangle, for Plato this is not a problem. If we can conceive the Idea or Form of a perfect triangle in our mind, then the Idea of Triangle must exist.”
MACINTOSH, David in https://philosophynow.org/issues/90/Plato_A_Theory_of_Forms
Forms, for this philosopher, delimit the true essence of the object, metaphysics; physical matter, the sensible, is only its formal appearance. When an artist paints a pipe, he only imitates the appearance of the pipe and not the Platonic idea of the pipe.
“(…) he considered it impossible for the universal definition to refer to any of the sensitive objects, as they were subject to change.” Aristotle on Plato. (…) Therefore, since the Forms are causes of other things, Plato considered the constitutive elements of the Forms as the elements of all beings.”
in ARISTOTLE. Metaphysics. Loyola Editions, São Paulo, 2002, P. 35 - 37
‘The Treachery of Images’, René Magritte, 1929
The intellectualization of the concept of 'form' continues with Aristotle, who, unlike Plato, does not distinguish between universal and particular form. Between the metaphysical and the sensitive concept, one cannot live without the other. Form and matter are part of the substance, in which matter is transformed into substance over the form it has.
Aristotle (384-322 BC) on the Pythagoreans and Plato:
“Plato, in fact, having been a friend of Cratylus from a young age and a follower of the Heaclitean doctrines, according to which all sensible things are in continuous flux and of which science cannot be made, later maintained these convictions. In turn, Socrates was concerned with ethical issues and not with nature in its entirety, but he sought the universal within those issues, having been the first to focus his attention on definitions. Now Plato accepted this Socratic doctrine, but believed, because of the conviction received from the Herarlitians, that the definitions referred to other realities and not to sensible realities. In fact, he considered it impossible for the universal definition to refer to any of the sensible objects, as they were subject to continuous change. So, he called these other realities Ideas, stating that the sensitive exist alongside them and receive their names from them. In effect, the plurality of sensible things that have the same name as forms exist through ‘participation’ in forms. When it comes to ‘participation’, Plato’s only innovation was the name. In fact, the Pythagoreans say that beings subsist by ‘imitation’ of numbers; Plato, instead, says ‘by participation’, changing only the name. In any case, for both, they equally neglected to indicate what ‘participation’ and ‘imitation’ of forms mean.”
in ARISTOTLE. Metaphysics. Edições Loyola, São Paulo, 2002, P. 36
In the 19th century, form became a confusing concept, with different positions. Kant assumes that it is only a property of perception; Goethe property of objects recognized through genetic principles and Hegel property above and before objects only perceptible by the mind.
"Let's imagine a Tree, this tree is the material substance, it has form and matter. The form is the nature of the tree, its appearance, this is changeable as the tree matures, it feeds/takes nutrients from the environment, removes waste and grows. Each of these events is part of the tree. It is not possible to remove the activity from the tree, from the tree itself. The shape of the tree determines the properties and activities of each physical part of it. Matter only appears determined by the plant to that particular activities and properties occur. Aristotle believes, for all substances, that without form, matter would have no properties or events."
FORTY, Adrien. Words and Buildings: A vocabulary of modern architecture. Thames and Hudson, New York, 2000, P. 150
Form in the Plastic Arts - the origin of Form
“Form in art is the shape imparted to an artifact by human intention and action.”
READ, Herbert. The Origins of Form in Art. Thames and Hudson, London, 1965, P.66
“Why, out of the shapeless chaos of stick and stones, or out of the handy and useful objects which were the first tools of primitive man, did form progressively emerge until it surpassed the utilitarian purpose of the shaped object and became a form for the sake of form, that is to say, a work of art?”
READ, Herbert. The Origins of Form in Art. Thames and Hudson, London, 1965, P.67
"The 'form,' despite having its concept rationalized in philosophy and later in aesthetics, we can look at history and understand when the first formal gesture was made, the intention to shape something with purpose other than functionality. If we look at the first tools that humans shaped,
"We find a chronological sequence which begins with convenient pieces of sharp stone, shark's teeth, or shells, anything with a cutting edge, and gradually (over many thousands of years) leads to objects deliberately shaped for this purpose."
12 READ, Herbert. The Origins of Form in Art. Thames and Hudson, London, 1965, P.68
The first documented tools are 'eoliths' (Stone Age), which are still very difficult to distinguish, discussed in the archaeological sphere, from shapes molded by erosion. Regardless of whether they were the first or not, it is only relevant to contextualize that in the Neolithic period, these tools evolved, but only as utilitarian forms (knives, axes...).
In this formal or morphological evolution, we can distinguish three types: First: perforation and cutting, where the objective was to create sharp or pointed artifacts; Second: hammers and mallets; Third: vessels or bowls for liquids or food. Once the invention of these pieces was stabilized, the technique of instrument production began to be refined. However, it's important to note that when we look at the timeline from the invention to the perfection of stone manufacturing techniques to refined instruments made of iron and bronze, it's half a million years of experience.
There are two possible hypotheses that can explain the origin of aesthetic form:
The first is a naturalistic imitation of forms found in nature. This imitation may have been conscious or unconscious. The second is idealistic. In the second hypothesis, the form gains its own meaning, it is a response to something, an expression/feeling, even if it does not necessarily have to be conscious. The expression can be intuitive or, on the contrary, derived from composition or rule.
With the improvement of tools, the laws of physics came into play, influencing shapes, such as symmetry, most likely inspired by human anatomy. This symmetry resulted in a balance between materials. The forms, although not exclusively utilitarian, always had to respond to function. For example, a vessel could be used for libations, storing or transporting grains, liquids, or ashes of the deceased.
All these rituals, some daily, others religious, deserve a different formal value in the vessel than just the utilitarian one. It must be acknowledged that spiritual value had a considerable influence on the evolution of form, from utility to ritual/spiritual.
"When Neolithic man, motivated perhaps by the practical purpose of achieving greater imperviousness to liquids, combined polishing with painting and applied both to a form he had created (plate 37), his consciousness of freedom was increased. The new means of representation changed the impression produced by the pot, and man consequently gained insight regarding the difference between the actual nature and the Effect of a given form. Formerly, when the prehistoric artist for the first time applied mathematics to matter, the Effect was only an outward adjustment – the weight of the material, despite its smoothness, still opposed the abstraction of mathematics. Now, when polished color concealed the material eye, the mind began to play with the impression of gravitational pull and tried to eliminate it. This tendency was heightened by the fact that the material was actually reduced to a fairly thin layer. In the much-admired thinness of badarian pottery we are confronted not only with virtuosity (which surely must have had a high market value), not only with the purely aesthetic principle of elegance, but with a general ideological force that attempted to play with the opposition between matter and spirit, that is, endeavored to stress or to eliminate this opposition by dematerializing the material and materializing the immaterial."
Excerpt from the book: RAPHAEL, Max. Prehistoric pottery and civilization in Egypt. Bollingen Series, New York, 1947, P.24-25, in READ, Herbert. The Origins of Form in Art. Thames and Hudson, London, 1965, P.75
In summary, this evolution that transforms utilitarian forms into works of art, where the spirit and rituals transcending the artifact's function are the reason for the transition. We can assume that it happened in three phases: the discovery of the utilitarian form, the refinement of the functional form to its utilitarian apogee, and finally, the refinement of the functional form with the purpose of creating or responding to symbolism.
Regarding the question of why, in the chaos of the Stone Age, humans translated utilitarian pieces into artistic ones, I believe it is in their nature. When already mastering the technique, artisans refined and gave meanings beyond it.
In the history of architecture, we can assume a similar path, between the translation of the utilitarian element into the artistic. Man, still in the primitive cave, precarious, a shelter, builds, in the same Stone Age, the first monuments, sets of forms, honoring what is beyond him, the Gods."
Above: Hand axe made of stone, found in 'Thames Valley.' From the Lower Paleolithic period. Below: Hand axe made of polished stone, found in 'Bornholm.' From the Late Neolithic period.
The (first) forms of architecture.
Marc-Antoine Laugier wrote an essay on architecture, which, although not aimed at explaining the origin of architecture, demonstrates its essential principles through the allegory of the primitive hut. An artificial shelter, whose function was to protect against natural elements, with a roof and walls made of materials such as stone, wood, or materials with similar plasticity. The form depended essentially on natural factors, climate, geography, and the materials themselves, where the essential components are the columns, entablature, and pediment. Laugier wrote:
"(...)from now on, it will be easy to distinguish between those parts that are essential to an architectural composition and those introduced by necessity and added to by caprice."
LAUGIER, Marc-Antoine. An Essay on Architecture. Osborn and Shipton, London, 1755.
Below, I present two illustrations, two versions of Marc Antoine Laugier's book "Essay on Architecture" (French and English editions), depicting the primitive hut, two rich and different representations of this first shelter created by humans. The first illustration, from the French version, seems like a vision, the woman, angelic and older, sitting under the metaphor of the wisdom of the times to come, the Greek pillars, shows or incites the imagination of a child, still naked, devoid of knowledge, of the physics existing in nature. The tree trunks, the pillars, and the canopies with branches, the roof. The principles of architecture already existed in nature. The resulting form of the metaphor is surprisingly similar to the house a child today would draw if asked. Childlike simplicity, only the necessary. The second illustration appears to be a continuation of the first image, as if it were a comic strip. A continuation, the materialization of teachings, where one sees men felling the trees that would become the pillars, others putting branches and leaves to make the roof.
The form of the primitive hut was the inheritance of what nature showed us. In the Stone Age, one of the possible theories for the evolution from utilitarian to artistic form was the imitation of nature. Here, illustrated, in architecture, the same movement occurred. The exit from the cave to a shelter, still utilitarian, established the foundations of architecture for the centuries to come.
Cover illustration of the book 'Essai sur L'Architecture' by Marc-Antoine Laugier (1753).
Illustration of the cover of the book 'An Essay on Architecture' by Marc-Antoine Laugier (1755)
The transition from this initial shelter had to invoke higher entities, the will to materialize the spirit's will, of God.
"Architecture, if it is to escape from the primitive, the childish, the archaic, must be inspired by considerations that are intellectual, abstract, spiritual – considerations that modify the strict requirements of utility." READ, Herbert. The Origins of Form in Art. Thames and Hudson, London, 1965, P.99
In ancient architecture, be it Greek or Roman, Gothic, Baroque, Renaissance, or other styles and manners, architecture was conceived through a set of formal elements and ornaments; the idea of contemporary form had no place.
The meaning of 'form' was more related to the formal principles of sculpture, aspiring to monumentality, with architecture seeking symbolic and ethereal meanings, enduring and monumental. The material was the same, stone (or wood), worked with the same plastic principles as in sculpture.
In ancient architecture, there was a purity, a translation of the material/substance into monumentality. Aesthetics, the beauty of a building, was intimately linked to its constructive truth and its true function.
"According to Hegel, God reveals himself in nature and art in the form of beauty. God manifests doubly: in the object and in the subject, in nature and in the spirit. Beauty is, therefore, the transparency of the idea through matter. The truly beautiful is only the spirit and everything that is connected to the spirit, and thus the beauty of nature is just the reflection that is peculiar to the spirit: the beautiful possesses only spiritual content. But the spiritual must manifest in a sensory form. The sensory manifestation of the spirit is only appearance (Shein). And this appearance is the only reality of the beautiful. Therefore, art is the realization of this appearance of the idea and is the means, along with religion and philosophy, to make conscious and give expression to the deepest human tasks and the supreme truths of the spirit. Truth and beauty, according to Hegel, are the same thing; the difference is that truth is the idea itself, in the way it exists and is intelligible in itself, while the externally manifested idea becomes for consciousness not only true but also beautiful. Beauty is the manifestation of the idea." TOLSTOY, Lev. What is Art. Gradiva, Lisbon, 2013, P. 59
'The Treasury' (Al-Khazneh) of the ancient Roman city of 'Petra' in Jordan (312 BC). In this example, I illustrate the proximity between sculpture and architecture, here, even in its construction through subtractions (carved) in solid rock.
This beauty of Hegel is reflected in a Greek or Roman building, where everything is designed and calculated in homage to a higher entity. From proportions to the configurative elements of the building, everything is an ode, a search for aesthetics and spirituality in a dialogue between the human scale and the scale of God. The presence of form is the presence of God's symbolism in human language, a balance between harmony and symmetry, governed by mathematical proportions.
"It is the eternally reiterated claim of spirit to inform matter, and art ceases to exist when that claim is refused. Nevertheless, matter is recalcitrant and only yields to a spirit capable of an intense and coherent vision. Aesthetics is the study of the conditions under which the materials of art are persuaded to accommodate an informing spirit. It has always been recognized that the Greek temple is the paradigm for this study (...)" READ, Herbert. The Origins of Form in Art. Thames and Hudson, London, 1965, P.99
Greek temples, if we observe, have fairly simple forms, even resembling the first image of the primitive hut, where they were still pristine natural elements. However, everything carries symbolic weight, everything was intellectualized, despite the principles appearing to be basic. Man was created in the image of God, and the temples were designed on the scale of the Creator with human proportion. The magnitude of the temples was meant to be seen from afar, like a sculpture honoring the Gods.
The Greek principles were fundamental, serving as the foundation upon which various styles unfolded in the subsequent centuries. By styles, I mean a series of "formal elements that have indicative value, are its repertoire, vocabulary, and sometimes a powerful instrument. Moreover, though less evident, a series of relationships, a syntax. A style is affirmed by its dimensions." FOCILLON, Henri. The Life of Forms. Art and Communication, Lisbon, 2016, P.17
Without delving into the characterization of the formal systems that define various styles, such as Gothic, Baroque, Renaissance (...), I simply want to emphasize that in architecture for several centuries, form was replaced by style. Architectural form was not an individual concept; it belonged to all, to a language that could coexist with another.
"Several styles can exist simultaneously, even in very close regions, even in the same region; styles do not develop in the same way in the various technical domains in which they are applied." FOCILLON, Henri. The Life of Forms. Art and Communication, Lisbon, 2016, P.17
Drawing by Louis I. Kahn at the 'Acropolis from the Olympieion, Athens, Greece' (drawn in 1951).
Drawing by Le Corbusier at the Parthenon, Athens, Acropolis, Greece (5th century BC) (drawn in 1911).
Viollet-le-Duc asserted that for all architectural forms, there was a reason. "Form is not the result of a whim... it is simply the expression of a structure (...) give me a structure and I will find the forms that naturally result from it."
FORTY, Adrien. Words and Buildings: A Vocabulary of Modern Architecture. Thames and Hudson, New York, 2000, P. 150
A Forma, a função, a expressão e o movimento modernista
“Form is one of the tried of terms (space and design are the other two) through which architectural modernism exists”
FORTY, Adrien. Words and Buildings: A vocabulary of modern Architecture. Thames and Hudson, New York, 2000, P. 150
It was in modernism that form gained space in architecture. Form was a consequence, a language between materials and results of spatial intentions. Form responded to function. Form for the sake of form was rejected, formalism. Looking at the entire movement, examining the writings and theories of architects, there was a willingness to embrace the maxim that form, the expression of a building, is revealed by its function. Considering the moment of transition and enrichment of materials used in the plasticity of architecture, such as steel and concrete, combined with technological advancements of the industrial revolution, one can understand the inclination to embrace functionalism as an ode to the movement.
"We know no forms, only building problems. Form is not the goal but the result of our work. There is no form in and for itself… form as a goal is formalism; and that we respect. Nor do we strive for style. Even the will to style is formalism."
FORTY, Adrien. Words and Buildings: A Vocabulary of Modern Architecture. Thames and Hudson, New York, 2000, P. 165
"We believe it is possible to define design in such a way that the rightness or wrongness of a building is clearly a question of fact, not a question of value."
LIONEL March. The Architecture of Form. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1976, P. 1
What was previously, or what depended before, absolutely, on the structure for the form of the building, the rigid shell of load-bearing walls, was replaced by a steel skeleton, as Mies Van de Rohe says: "skin and skeleton of bones". In this machine age, the concerns of architects diverged from the pursuit of monumentality or beauty of their ancestors, or at least, that's how the modern movement began. The relationship with art, with sculpture, so intimate in ancient and classical architecture, is lost (for a moment) in favor of functionality.
"For example, it is said that Hannes Meyer, architect of the Bauhaus, stated that 'it is absurd to speak of modern style in terms of aesthetics. If a building fulfills its purposes adequately, complete, and without compromise, it is a good building, regardless of its appearance.' And Loos considered that architecture should be counted among the arts, only to the extent that it deals with tombs or monuments, since contamination between art and material purpose 'profanes its superior' objective. And before him, Schopenhauer made the observation that architecture cannot be considered art to the extent that it serves a practical purpose, since by serving utility, it serves the will, meaning, material needs, more than pure cognition."
ARNHEIM, Rudolf. Toward a Psychology of Art and Art and Entropy. Dinalivro, Lisbon, 1997, P.194
The functionalists believed that beauty would be a consequence if they focused only on practical needs, it was not intentional. However, despite the intent, an aesthetic value is inherently present, fitting into the realm of art, through visual expression. Rudolf Arnheim, in the book 'Toward a Psychology of Art,' explores how intuitive the sense of beauty is to the architect, to humanity, even if they don't want to or don't know they are doing it. To argue this, he uses a reflection by Adolf Loos, one of the architects who argued, as illustrated above, that architecture does not belong in the realm of art. However, Loos does so unconsciously.
"Adolf Loos, the Viennese reformist architect of the early century, speaks of the peace of a mountain lake: the mountains and clouds are reflected in the water, in the same way that the farms and churches of the villages 'seem not to have been built by human hands.' But a dissonance breaks this peace 'with an unnecessary clamor. In the midst of the farmers' houses, built not by them but by God, a vacation home emerges. Creation of a good or bad architect? I don't know. What I do know is that the peace, calm, and beauty have disappeared.' And Loos asks: 'why did an architect, good or bad, have to profane the lake? The peasant did not, nor will the engineer' who built the boats and the railway, Loos points out that the peasant's feeling is entirely oriented by the utilitarian aspects of his house: the roof, the door. His sense of beauty is guided instinctively. His house is 'as beautiful as a rose, a thistle, a horse or a cow.' The faculties to create appropriate proportions, harmony of colors, a suitable form, and a visible expression act intuitively, as in a child's paintings or in primitive craftsmanship."
ARNHEIM, Rudolf. Toward a Psychology of Art and Art and Entropy. Dinalivro, Lisbon, 1997, P.193
Loos' praise of instinct, of the primitive, reminds us of Laugier's basic elements, where architecture is reduced to just these components. The rest, the ornament, is excluded from the functionalist language, as they are not essential. The Viennese architect strips the buildings to their essential elements and emphasizes the divorce of the new era of architecture from ornament.
There is a clear contradiction between ideal intentions and reality. Herbert Read, mentioned several times in this dissertation, juxtaposes the positions of Mies Van Der Rohe and Fiedler (a German historian). Mies says:
"Form is not the aim of our work, but only the result. Form, by itself, does not exist. Form as an aim is formalism; and that we reject."
READ, Herbert. The Origins of Form in Art. Thames and Hudson, London, 1965, P.107
In contrast, Fiedler assumes:
"In architecture, as in every intellectual activity, there is a progress from the formless to the formed… forms which owe their existence to needs and wants, or to technical ability, are, so to say, molded from outside according to certain independently formulated requirements… 'the' artistic process of creation in architecture is characterized by an alteration of form whereby materials and constructions continue to recede, while the form which belongs to the intellect, continues to develop towards an increasingly independent existence."
READ, Herbert. The Origins of Form in Art. Thames and Hudson, London, 1965, P.108
These two statements cannot coexist regarding formalism in architecture. Herbert Read, to deconstruct Mies' position, quotes him again and shows the weakness of the purely functionalist stance. In assuming the position of director of architecture at the Armour Institute of Architecture in 1938, Mies admits that architecture in its simplest form is absolutely rooted in functional considerations, "it can reach all levels of value, from the highest sphere of spiritual existence, to the domain of purest art."
He reiterates that the sensations provoked by the materials, if the expressive power of the great buildings of the past is achieved, are achieved through the relationship of the materials used. A relationship between material - expression revealed by constructive truth that can be equally achieved by the materials contemporary to it, steel and concrete.
"(...) everything depends on how we use a material, not the material itself (...) how it is used will depend on the functions of the building, and on certain psychological or spiritual factors, for in the end we are dependent on the 'spirit of our time'."
READ, Herbert. The Origins of Form in Art. Thames and Hudson, London, 1965, P.108
Illustration in a caricature tone, depicting the search for the modern movement, the shift from a paradigm that revered ornamentation. It was a shock when buildings were stripped down. The image explores the banality of simplicity, which had nothing beautiful about it. Dry and sober like a gutter grid. 1911, newspaper.
Form belongs to its time and is conceived with the language (materials) of its era. This maxim applies across all arts. The expressions imprinted in ideas are only current; we inherit past ideals but cannot reproduce them. In modernism, three new orders/principles emerge in the realm of architecture:
"(...) the mechanistic which overemphasizes the materialistic and functionalistic factors in life; the idealistic which overemphasizes the ideal and the formal; and the organic which alone achieves the successful relationship of the parts to each other and to the whole."
READ, Herbert. The Origins of Form in Art. Thames and Hudson, London, 1965, P.108
This new term, organic, the link between the parts and the whole, as Herbert Read mentions, is at the heart of Frank Lloyd Wright's architecture, an addition to the modernist movement beyond its functionalist premises and the dialectic between materials. The relationship with the place emerges.
Form cannot be reduced to a mathematical formula, as can be applied in nature, for example, the Fibonacci sequence, nor as Viollet-Le-Duc used to assume, stating that the form resulted from the structure of the building.
The formal result, even in the machine age, in architecture, is not the same process as a mechanical apparatus, a machine, despite what the modernist movement wants to imply.
"Art differs from nature, not in its organic form, but in its human origins: in fact that is not God or a machine that makes a work of art, but the individual with his instincts and his intuitions, with his sensibility and his mind, searching restlessly for the perfection that is neither in mind nor in nature, but in the unknown. I do not mean this in any other-worldly sense: only in the sense that the form of the flower is unknown to the seed."
READ, Herbert. The Origins of Form in Art. Thames and Hudson, London, 1965, P.108