Louis Sullivan wrote: "It is the pervading law of all things organic, and inorganic, of all

things physical and metaphysical, of all things human and all things super-human, of all true
manifestations of the head, of the heart, of the soul, that the life is recognizable in its
expression, that form ever follows function. This is the law." What did he mean by this, and
how are these principles embodied in his architecture? Discuss in relation to several of his
key projects.
Form Follows Function, is one phrase in modern architecture and industrial design that has dwarfed most. It is
the notion that the shape or form of a building or object should be a direct result of its intended function. In
theory this correlation between shape and purpose is a reasonable concept. However, due to the ambiguity of the
principles behind the idea it has hence been the subject of many architectural debates and controversies.
The origins of functionalism in architecture can be traced as far back as Vitruvius who proclaimed that good
architecture must have durability, convenience (respect for function) and beauty. 1 However, the dictum Form
Follows Function is a far more recent expression and its fame and significance in modern architecture can be
credited to American Architect Louis Henry Sullivan. A firm believer in organic principles, Sullivan felt that the
external form of a work of art should, as with plants and animals in nature, be a product of an inner force or
essence, rather than being mechanically imposed from without. 2 So firm were his beliefs that instead of
defining form ever follows function as a principle, he defined it as a law, a rule that shall permit no
exception. This essay will discuss the manifestation of this principle, or law, in several of his architectural
works, especially the Transportation Building, Carson Pirie Scott Department Store and National Farmers Bank
- as well as - the writings and history of Louis Sullivan in an attempt to understand his interpretation of the
phrase that he so passionately asserted and that would be of lasting impact on modern architecture worldwide.

Subject, Verb, Object. Form Follows Function is as short a sentence as any Western
language permits.3

Yet although it is simple grammatically it is a phrase filled with

complexity. Of the three comprising words all but the first are open to interpretation and it is
this vagueness or lack of definition that is the root of all controversies that surround it.
Introduced to America by sculptor Horatio Greenough the dictum was then adopted and made
famous by architect Louis Henry Sullivan who declared that Form ever follows function.
This is the law.4 Through writings and lectures he portrayed this statement as a dogma of
religion, somewhat of a commandment to architects and designers alike. Sullivans career
was riddled with success and failure, praise and criticism. Even since his death in 1924 he has
been both upheld as a prophet of modern architecture and shunned as a romantic failure. A
large contributing factor to his labile reputation was his assertion that form ever follows
1 Jansen, H W, 1982, Form Follows Function - or Does It? Modernist Design Theory and the History of Art,
Maarsen, p 5

2 Colquhoun, Alan, 2002, Modern Architecture, Oxford University Press, London, p 41

3 Jansen, H W, 1982, Form Follows Function - or Does It? Modernist Design Theory and the History of Art,
Maarsen, p 5
4 Sullivan, Louis H, 1947 "The Tall Office Building Artistically Considered." In: Athey I., ed. Kindergarten
Chats (revised 1918) and Other Writings. New York, p 202-13.

function and his insistence upon this creed being the very essence of all of his architectural
designs. However, it was not until nearly twenty years into his career that the dictum first
presented itself in his essay The Tall Office Building Artistically Considered. It is therefore
essential to examine Sullivans development of thought from an early stage with the intention
of discovering how he reached his ultimate conclusion.
At sixteen, in October of 1872, Sullivan began his architectural studies at MIT as a self
proclaimed special student5. After just one year he left Massachusetts and joined the firm of
Furness & Hewitt based in Philadelphia. Furness has been described as something of a wild
man in American design,6 even as barbaric and iconoclastic.7 As Mario Manieri Elia
states, His (Furnesss) works served to introduce a new figurative approach, one freed from
traditional models and tied to a new logic embedded in the concept of architecture as a
language.8 It is therefore interesting to note that, although in his autobiography Sullivan
rejected his time at Furness & Hewitt as having had modest impact on his later career, this
linguistic logic, as well as Furnesss use of decorative organic motifs (Fig. 1), featured
heavily in many of Sullivans own major works.9
Furthermore, during his period with Furness & Hewitt, Sullivan was undoubtedly first
introduced to the New England School of transcendentalism by Ralph Waldo Emerson, a
close friend of Furnesss father. Emerson was interested in what he called metaphysics in
architecture.10 He believed that there is nothing arbitrary in true architecture, even to the
lowest detail11 and in his essay on Nature wrote: Nature who made the mason, made the
house.12 His writings developed a theory of design in which necessity should shape the
architecture, not vice versa, and profess a clear notion of natural and organic design. The
5 Van Zanten, David, & Jordy, William, & De Wit, Wim, & Elstein, Rochelle Berger, 1986, Louis
Sullivan - The Function of Ornament, W.W. Norton & Company, New York, p15
6 Elia, Mario Manieri, 1996, Louis Henry Sullivan, Princeton Architectural Press, New York, p11
7 Elia, Mario Manieri, 1996, Louis Henry Sullivan, Princeton Architectural Press, New York, p11
8 Elia, Mario Manieri, 1996, Louis Henry Sullivan, Princeton Architectural Press, New York, p11
9 Elia, Mario Manieri, 1996, Louis Henry Sullivan, Princeton Architectural Press, New York, p13
10 Michl, Jan, 1995, Form Follows WHAT- The modernist notion of function as a carte blanche IN:
1:50 - Magazine of the Faculty of Architecture & Town Planning, Israel Institute of Technology nr. 10,
p31-35
11 Emerson, Ralph Waldon, & Ripley, George, & Fuller, Margaret, 1843, The Dial, James Munroe &
Co, London, p 107

influence of transcendentalism is profoundly apparent in Sullivans buildings and even more

so in his writings. Easily recognisable is the correlation between Emersons writings and
Sullivans and this is remarkably distinguishable in his celebrated dictum Form ever follows
function and the subject of this essay.
In late 1973 Sullivans abrupt departure from Furnesss studio came about when the
depression forced a reduction in staff. This led him to Chicago, where his parents were
situated, and into the studio of William Le Baron Jenney. It is in this studio where Sullivan
became acquaintances with John H. Edelmann a socialist-anarchist who was to be of vital
importance in both Sullivans education and professional career. Sullivan was astonished by
Edelmann who displayed a richness of intellectual breadth and whose idealistic views on both
politics and art easily won him over.13 Soon after their introduction Edelmann inducted
Sullivan into a group of friends called The Lotus Club and throughout this time he
developed skills both technically, under the guidance of Jenney, and philosophically under the
guidance of Edelmann.
Shortly after his arrival in Chicago, Sullivan again left. Bound for France, it is impossible to
determine whether he was in search of new inspiration or it was an attempt to visit the
cultural heritage of his maternal grandmother and grandfather. In any case, it was to have a
great impression on the development of the young mans ideals. Of particular importance
were Sullivans studies at Ecole des Beaux Arts beneath the mathematician Monsieur Clopet
who was determined to dissect reality with geometric precision. 14 Clopet even went as far as
to say Our demonstrations shall be so broad as to admit of no exceptions15 Throughout
Sullivans adolescence he had always been fascinated by supremacy and power which he saw
as the greatest expression of creative freedom, to be obtained in a climate of individualistic
democracy.16 His messianic aspirations were further enhanced by the concrete and pragmatic
12 Michl, Jan, 1995, Form Follows WHAT- The modernist notion of function as a carte blanche IN:
1:50 - Magazine of the Faculty of Architecture & Town Planning, Israel Institute of Technology nr. 10,
p31-35

13 Elia, Mario Manieri, 1996, Louis Henry Sullivan, Princeton Architectural Press, New York, p14
14 Elia, Mario Manieri, 1996, Louis Henry Sullivan, Princeton Architectural Press, New York, p16
15 Elia, Mario Manieri, 1996, Louis Henry Sullivan, Princeton Architectural Press, New York, p16
16 Elia, Mario Manieri, 1996, Louis Henry Sullivan, Princeton Architectural Press, New York, p19

approaches Clopet took towards mathematics. Approaches that so clearly draw a parallel to
the manner in which Sullivan approached his architecture and writings. For Sullivan, power
was to give him freedom of creative liberty, form ever follows function, and security as
firm authority, This is the law.
Whilst in Europe Sullivan also visited Florence where he became overwhelmed with the
works of Michelangelo. To Sullivan, Michelangelo was a Super-Man, a Great Free Spirit
and the first mighty man of Courage.17 The grandeur of Michelangelos Sistine Chapel
(Fig. 2) alongside the inspiring teachings of Clopet rekindled Sullivans obsession with power
and he returned to Chicago shortly after with a yearning for authority.
Upon his return, Sullivan was openly welcomed and encouraged by Edelmann, who, even
throughout his travels, had still remained an influential character upon the young architects
ideas. At this point, Edelmanns guidance introduced Sullivan to the works of Charles
Darwin and Herbert Spencer. Darwins Natural Selection and Spencers Survival of the
Fittest fit perfectly with Sullivans already budding theory of Functionalism and further
fuelled his emergent notion of organic design. Since Sullivans departure for Europe,
Edelmann had opened his own firm, and between the years 1875-1879 Sullivan worked as a
draftsman for this and various other firms in Chicago. Unfortunately our recollection of the
designs created during this time is limited to the sketches of building details found in the
Lotus Club Notebook (Fig. 3). However, Sullivans work on the interior frescos of the Sinai
Temple and Moody Tabernacle, his first two professional assignments, gained noteworthy
recognition that he immediately took advantage of and his fame soon outshone that of his
friend and mentor Edelmann.18
At the beginning of 1880 Sullivan, after being prompted by Edelmann, contacted Dankmar
Alder, already a prominent figure in Chicago, and was soon to form a partnership that would
last for fifteen years and would be the most formidable partnership of Sullivans career.
Heading towards success and the power he endeavoured to achieve, Sullivans philosophies
had been moulded through experiences into an organic and functionalist outlook and show a
clear and logical progression towards his most reputable statement Form ever follows
function.

17 Elia, Mario Manieri, 1996, Louis Henry Sullivan, Princeton Architectural Press, New York, p16
18 Elia, Mario Manieri, 1996, Louis Henry Sullivan, Princeton Architectural Press, New York, p19

Alder & Sullivan grew from strength to strength in the coming years. Starting with the
Borden Block in 1880 (Fig. 4), although Sullivan was not yet a partner, his influence
becomes apparent in the interior decorative motifs and ornament. Much in the same manner
as with the Sinai Temple and Moody Tabernacle, he tackled his work with vigour and stated
an obvious claim of territory in order to build a reputation upon. Within the following year
Sullivan was made a full partner by Alder and in the following ten years the firm gained
many major commissions.
Until 1886 Sullivans work was reminiscent of his previous employer Furness with its
ornamental fantasizing and the idea of recycling Gothic or Venetian architectural models in
decoration of the metal structure.19 This similarity can be noticed in such buildings as the
Rothschild (Fig. 5) and Revel building both of which have, unfortunately, been destroyed.
Between the years of 1886 and 1890 however the designs produced by the firm shifted
towards the mimicry of another, namely H. H. Richardson. Easily identifiable, predominantly
in the Auditorium Building (Fig. 6) with its uncanny resemblance to Richardsons Marshall
Field Wholesale Store (Fig. 7), Sullivan began to explore Richardsons Romanesque and
Neo-Grec concepts. These experiments are imperative to recognise as they played a
considerable role in Sullivans later work and strongly influenced Sullivans thoughts on a
truly American Architecture.
Even clearly under the influence of other architects, Sullivan, already depicted himself as
being an individual rejecting classicism and embracing transcendentalism. In interviews,
when asked what his style was he maintained I have not given study to the nomenclature of
peculiar art forms in these boxes or carried out in that proscenium crown and I prefer that
you speak of it as the successful solution of a problem. 20 His words draw a close parallel to
his notion of form and function that was only enhanced by him citing the doctrine of Darwin
and principles of Spencer and relating them to his designs21.
It wasnt until 1891 that we saw a completely new and completely individual style in the
Wainwright building (Fig. 8).22 Sullivan had been pursuing the daunting and ambitious role
19 Elia, Mario Manieri, 1996, Louis Henry Sullivan, Princeton Architectural Press, New York, p22
20 Sullivan, Louis H, as cited in Twombly, Life and Work, p151
21 Elia, Mario Manieri, 1996, Louis Henry Sullivan, Princeton Architectural Press, New York, p29
22 Van Zanten, David, & Jordy, William, & De Wit, Wim, & Elstein, Rochelle Berger, 1986, Louis
Sullivan - The Function of Ornament, W.W. Norton & Company, New York, p37

of a messiah of a new architecture an architecture that synthesized production and

technology with an American aesthetic of the new.

23

His aim was to develop an American

cultural identity through building and this, already apparent in the Wainwright building,
climaxed with the Worlds Columbian Exposition. Although Sullivans famous dictum had
not yet materialized there is an undeniable influence of formalist notions in his Transportation
Building at the World Columbian Exposition. A project, although only temporary, that was to
have lasting impact on the architects career.
Between 1891 and 1893 a major international event that would dictate American architecture
for decades forward was to be hosted on the shores of Lake Michigan. 24 It is here at the
World Columbian Exposition, directed by Daniel H. Burnham, that Sullivan would encounter
the first great challenge of to his functionalist proposals, culminating with the Transportation
Building (Fig.9) The theme of the exposition was to be classicism and Burnham had no
difficulty adjusting and adhering to these ideas. Sullivan however, saw the notion of
classicism as a step back in American architecture and was utterly appalled by the designs put
forth. He saw both Burnham and the World Columbian Exposition as a direct threat to his
own vital intellectual and artistic endeavour and feared a sharp reversal of everything he had
been working to create.
Hence, as a direct challenge and in an attempt to make a statement, Sullivan did not conform
to the standardised classical-Baroque facades of lathe and plaster and painted white, and the
result was the Transportation Building. The Transportation Building was architecturally very
simple (Fig. 10). A long, low arcaded building, painted in various strong colours, with a large
polychromed archway entrance, its Golden Doorway. (Fig.11) It was to focus more on
Sullivans system of architectural ornament and expressed Sullivans ambition for an
American Fair where the designs did not conform to the mechanistic ways of classicism but
embraced a new natural form of architecture. These objectives are articulated in a letter
Sullivan wrote to Burnham after a query about the way in which Sullivans design related to
the general theme of transportation:
The thought we sought to express in the Transportation Building was this: An architectural exhibit.
This thought subdivided itself as follows:
1.

A natural, not historical exhibit.

23 Elia, Mario Manieri, 1996, Louis Henry Sullivan, Princeton Architectural Press, New York, p78
24 Elia, Mario Manieri, 1996, Louis Henry Sullivan, Princeton Architectural Press, New York, p92

2.

To be expressed by elementary masses carrying elaborate decoration.

3.

All architectural masses and subdivisions be bounded by straight lines or semi-circles or both in
combination, to illustrate the possibilities of very simple elements when in effective combination

4.

The decorations to be of a very elaborate nature and chiefly in colour.

5.

The combination of 3 and 4 to show how easily and quietly large and simple masses carry
elaborately and minutely worked out ornamentation.

6.

The chief object of 4 being to show that the farther the process of systematic subdivision be carried
the quieter and more dignified the structure becomes as a whole.

7.

The use of coloured decorations to show the possibility of sequence combination, and repetition
when a great many colours are used: hence a true nature of polychrome.

8.

The use of a symbolical human figure in colour to show its great value in architectural decoration

9.

A long series of minor considerations, entering too minutely into detail to be here enumerated.

10. The summarizing thought, that all this should be done in a natural and easy way, - as willing to
teach while searching for beauty.25

It is without dispute that the thought Sullivan sought to express is evident in the final
outcome of the Transportation Building. The semicircular archways of the facade and the
Golden Doorway are both intricately ornamented and used in conjuncture with the
elementary masses of the building and find a unique balance with intense colours adorn the
facade.
Coinciding with the development of the Transportation building was one of Sullivans most
renowned essays, Ornament in architecture, in this essay Sullivan writes: I take it as self
evident that a building, quite devoid of ornament, may convey a noble and dignified
sentiment by virtue of mass and proportion,26 a truly functionalist statement. However,
Sullivan encourages ornament which he believed should appear, when completed, as though
by the outworking of some beneficent agency it had come forth from the very substance of
the material and was there by the same right that a flower appears amid the leaves of its
parent plant.27 Sullivans letter to Burnham and his writings in the essay Ornament in
25 Sullivan, Louis H, as cited by Elia, IN: Louis Henry Sullivan, p118
26 Sullivan, Louis H, as cited by Elia, IN: Louis Henry Sullivan, p100
27 Sullivan, Louis H, 1892, Ornament In Architecture as cited by Szarkowski, IN: The Idea of
Louis Henry Sullivan, p104

architecture clearly sanction a new direction for architecture and are a fantastic
representation of Sullivans views on nature, form and function. 28
After the exposition, architecture in Chicago was deviating from Sullivans ideas of
transcendental organacisim, much to his dismay and disgust, and a wave of Beaux-Arts and
classicist principles was underway. Initially optimistic, Sullivan was not deterred and the
firm of Alder & Sullivan reached their highest moments with two buildings: the Chicago
Stock Exchange (Fig. 12) 1892-93 and the Union Trust Building (Fig. 13) 1892-93. This
success however was not to last and Sullivans career was to fall into a rapid downward spiral
that coincides with several key factors, including the introduction of his famous dictum.
In 1893 Sullivans most renowned and brilliant student Frank Lloyd Wright, after several
years of collaboration with the firm, departed and with him took many clients. Some say that
this, alongside the subtle hostilities of adversary Daniel H. Burnham, initiated Sullivans
downfall. Alder & Sullivan were soon to feel the effects of a depression in America and the
only major commission that they attained between 1894 and 1895 was the Guaranty Building
in Buffalo (Fig. 14). The so called Twin of the Wainwright Building also brought about the
separation of Sullivan from Alder ending a fifteen year long partnership. Gaining much
acclaim, the Guaranty building was the definitive break in the relationship. Although a
collaboration of the two architects, Sullivan took credit for the success of the building a so
called masterpiece of Louis H Sullivan, who is famous in two continents for the beauty,
originality and refinement of his conceptions29
As a result of his accomplishment Sullivan was then to publish the essay for which he would
earn lasting fame The Tall Office Building Artistically Considered where he writes:
"It is the pervading law of all things organic, and inorganic, of all things physical and metaphysical, of
all things human and all things super-human, of all true manifestations of the head, of the heart, of the
soul, that the life is recognizable in its expression, that form ever follows function. This is the law."

Sullivan, after years of developing his philosophies, had finally repackaged them in order to
provide a new beginning for Americas cultural identity and could not help but find a
metaphor for this in the form of the skyscraper.30
28 Elia, Mario Manieri, 1996, Louis Henry Sullivan, Princeton Architectural Press, New York, p118119
29 Elia, Mario Manieri, 1996, Louis Henry Sullivan, Princeton Architectural Press, New York, p121
30 Elia, Mario Manieri, 1996, Louis Henry Sullivan, Princeton Architectural Press, New York, p121

Although this proclamation is now considered to be Sullivans greatest moment, it came

about at the start of his fast declining professional career and its iconoclastic assertions are
sure to have played a part in his waning reputation. As recognised by Mario Manieri Elia,
Sullivans genius never failed him.31 It was his repeated attacks on the architectural
establishment, rejection of compromise, reputation as an impractical artist, reluctance to
design residences, opposition to the classical revival and a long-standing psychological
disturbance which resulted in an inevitable and rapid decline in success.32
Sullivans last major commercial project was the Schlesinger & Mayer (later Carson, Pririe,
Scott) Department Store 1898-99 (Fig. 15). Of particular significance for a number of
reasons, the building is stylistically a departure from his earlier skyscrapers, in that it was not
soaringly vertical, but a dynamic equilibrium of vertical and horizontal forces.33 Moreover, it
is analytically a key monument for both modernist critics and partisans of Sullivans
decoration.34 Built on the corner of State and Madison Streets in Chicago, the alleged
Worlds Busiest Corner, Sullivans Schlesinger & Mayer Department Store is highly
controversial among his critics as many believed it portrayed a perfect coherence between
function and form, whilst others felt it established Sullivan as a hypocrite who contradicted
his own declarations.
The building is a tall steel structure that allows for a dramatic increase in window area. A
very functional approach to the buildings design, this increase in window area, opened the
buildings interiors to more daylight and provided larger displays of merchandise to outside
pedestrian traffic. Sullivan also designed the corner entry of the building to be seen from both
State and Madison Street, and intended that the extravagant cast-iron ornamental work (Fig.
16 & 17), situated above the main entrance, would literally attract passersby. Sullivans
functional design of the building is praised in particular by critic Lyndon P. Smith who said:
Form followed utilitarian function in the extent of the fenestration and psychic function in
the delicacy of the ornament35 and William Jordy, nearly seven decades later, expands upon

31 Elia, Mario Manieri, 1996, Louis Henry Sullivan, Princeton Architectural Press, New York, p152
32 Elia, Mario Manieri, 1996, Louis Henry Sullivan, Princeton Architectural Press, New York, p153
33 Van Zanten, David, & Jordy, William, & De Wit, Wim, & Elstein, Rochelle Berger, 1986, Louis
Sullivan - The Function of Ornament, W.W. Norton & Company, New York, p 205
34 Van Zanten, David, & Jordy, William, & De Wit, Wim, & Elstein, Rochelle Berger, 1986, Louis
Sullivan - The Function of Ornament, W.W. Norton & Company, New York, p 205

this saying it is an entity in which structure and decoration are mutually reinforcing and in
which function extends to the psychological, practical and formal aspects of the work36
However, the Schlesinger & Mayer Store was not without its critics. It has been condemned
as having used obsolete ornament and Vincent Scully dismissed the supposedly functional
decoration as solipsistic, a form of art for the artists sake. 37 It should also be noted the many
changes in this buildings design as a result of the clients ever-changing requirements. To this
fact Mario Manieri Elia writes that it is possible that form might follow the shifting demands
of the client instead of a given function38
In the following years Sullivans reputation in Chicago plummeted, he was without both
Alder and Wright, his marriage to Margaret Hattabough in 1899 was unstable, and American
architecture was heading in a direction he had no intention in being part of. Being both
financially and mentally unstable, with a turn to alcoholism, Sullivan served the remainder of
his career designing small town Midwestern Banks and writing his Autobiography of an
Idea. Although of little impact at the time, the distinct style of Sullivans banks have since
gained critical acclaim and serve an important role in the understanding of Sullivans
interpretation of Form follows Function.
Arguably Sullivans most distinguished bank in his series of Jewel Boxes is the National
Farmers Bank in Minnesota (Fig. 18). The bank, conceived from a single structure focused
on a large public hall, is clad in red brick with green terra cotta bands (Fig. 19). It features
two large arched windows enclosed with stained glass (Fig. 20) and internally it is elaborately
decorated in ornament and murals that adorn the walls and ceiling (Fig. 21). The purpose of
the arches was to provide abundant natural light, and to evoke the sense of meeting place
once associated with this form.39 The building, according to Mario Manieri Elia marked a

35 Van Zanten, David, & Jordy, William, & De Wit, Wim, & Elstein, Rochelle Berger, 1986, Louis
Sullivan - The Function of Ornament, W.W. Norton & Company, New York p205
36 Van Zanten, David, & Jordy, William, & De Wit, Wim, & Elstein, Rochelle Berger, 1986, Louis
Sullivan - The Function of Ornament, W.W. Norton & Company, New York p 206
37 Van Zanten, David, & Jordy, William, & De Wit, Wim, & Elstein, Rochelle Berger, 1986, Louis
Sullivan - The Function of Ornament, W.W. Norton & Company, New York p 207
38 Elia, Mario Manieri, 1996, Louis Henry Sullivan, Princeton Architectural Press, New York, p128
39 Elia, Mario Manieri, 1996, Louis Henry Sullivan, Princeton Architectural Press, New York, p149

high point in Sullivans search for and American language of architecture.40 Its simplicity of
form with its intricacy of ornament marked a pinnacle in both Sullivans search for a truly
American Architecture as well as a portrayal of how form follows function, both of which are
intimately linked. A complex array of values house the most explicitly prosaic and alienating
social activity of human community in a form that is as clearly identifiable by its purpose, a
bank.41
Over time Sullivan had been influenced by Furness, Edlemann, Alder, Michelangelo, Clopet,
Darwin, Spencer, Richardson and many others. He developed thoughts and ideas on organic
theory, transcendentalism, and cultivation of society. Everything throughout his studies led
Sullivan to his ultimate conclusion, the commandment of his religion of architecture, that
form ever follows function. This dictum was Sullivans attempt to create a new approach to
architectural design. It was not an attempt to provide a mechanistic approach to tackling an
architectural problem as with classicism but rather a notion that architecture should evolve
from its environment in addition to expressing its function and structural requirements. To
say that this declaration was controversial would be an understatement and critics arbitrary
ideas of function have been the trigger of a debate over the integrity of Sullivans maxim
that is unlikely to ever end. Even so, it cannot be disputed that through his declaration
Sullivan gained a rightful place in American architectural history and paved the way for many
subsequent modernist movements.

40 Elia, Mario Manieri, 1996, Louis Henry Sullivan, Princeton Architectural Press, New York, p148
41 Elia, Mario Manieri, 1996, Louis Henry Sullivan, Princeton Architectural Press, New York, p149

Fig 1. Furness, Ornament, Fisher Fine Arts Library, 1888

Fig 2. Michelangelo, Sistine Chapel, 1482

Fig 3. Sullivan, Preliminary Design for Sinai Temple, 1876

Fig 4. Dankmar Alder & Co, Borden Block 1880

Fig. 5 Dankmar Alder (with Sullivan), Rothschild Building 1881

Fig. 6 Alder & Sullivan, Auditorium Building, 1886-1889

Fig. 7 H H Richardson, Marshall Field Wholesale Store, 1885-1887

Fig 8 Alder & Sullivan, Wainwright Building, 1890-92

Fig. 9 Alder & Sullivan, Transportation Building, 1891-93

Fig. 10 Alder & Sullivan, Transportation Building Floor Plans 1893

Fig. 11 Alder & Sullivan, Transportation Building Golden Door1893

Fig. 12 Alder & Sullivan, Chicago Stock Exchange, 1892-1893

Fig. 13 Alder & Sullivan, Union Trust Building, 1892-93

Fig. 14 Alder & Sullivan, Guaranty Building, 1894-95

Fig. 15 Sullivan, Schlesinger & Mayer (Later Carson, Pirie, Scott) Store, 1898-99

Fig. 16 Sullivan, Schlesinger & Mayer Store, entrance detail.

Fig. 17 Sullivan, Schlesinger & Mayer Store, ornament detail.

Fig. 18 Sullivan, National Farmers Bank, 1906-1908

Fig. 19 Sullivan, National Farmers Bank, Detail of brick and TerraCotta

Fig. 20 Sullivan, National Farmers Bank, View of Arched Stained

Glass

Fig. 21 Sullivan, National Farmers Bank, detail of interior ornament.

Reference of Images: Figure No.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

Reference: Wikipedia
Wikipedia
Van Zanten, David, & Jordy, William, & De Wit, Wim, & Elstein, Rochelle Berger, 1986,
Louis Sullivan - The Function of Ornament, W.W. Norton & Company, New York
Elia, Mario Manieri, 1996, Louis Henry Sullivan, Princeton Architectural Press, New York.
Elia, Mario Manieri, 1996, Louis Henry Sullivan, Princeton Architectural Press, New York.
Szarkowski, John, 2000, The Idea of Louis Henry Sullivan, Thames & Hudson, London
Elia, Mario Manieri, 1996, Louis Henry Sullivan, Princeton Architectural Press, New York.
Szarkowski, John, 2000, The Idea of Louis Henry Sullivan, Thames & Hudson, London
Elia, Mario Manieri, 1996, Louis Henry Sullivan, Princeton Architectural Press, New York.
http://columbus.iit.edu/
Taylor, Crombie, & Plank, Jeffrey, 2001, The Early Louis Sullivan Building Photographs,
William Stout Publishers, San Francisco
Szarkowski, John, 2000, The Idea of Louis Henry Sullivan, Thames & Hudson, London
Elia, Mario Manieri, 1996, Louis Henry Sullivan, Princeton Architectural Press, New York.
Szarkowski, John, 2000, The Idea of Louis Henry Sullivan, Thames & Hudson, London
Szarkowski, John, 2000, The Idea of Louis Henry Sullivan, Thames & Hudson, London
Szarkowski, John, 2000, The Idea of Louis Henry Sullivan, Thames & Hudson, London
Taylor, Crombie, & Plank, Jeffrey, 2001, The Early Louis Sullivan Building Photographs,
William Stout Publishers, San Francisco
Taylor, Crombie, & Plank, Jeffrey, 2001, The Early Louis Sullivan Building Photographs,
William Stout Publishers, San Francisco
Elia, Mario Manieri, 1996, Louis Henry Sullivan, Princeton Architectural Press, New York.
Szarkowski, John, 2000, The Idea of Louis Henry Sullivan, Thames & Hudson, London

Bibliography: Andrew, David S, 1947, Louis Sullivan and the Polemics of Modern Architecture, University of Illinois Press,
Chicago.
Bush-Brown, Albert, 1960, Louis Sullivan, George Braziller Inc, New York.
Colquhoun, Alan, 2002, Modern Architecture, Oxford University Press, London.
Connely, Willard, 1960, Louis Sullivan The Shaping of American Architecture, Horizon Press, New York.
Elia, Mario Manieri, 1996, Louis Henry Sullivan, Princeton Architectural Press, New York.
Emerson, Ralph Waldon, & Ripley, George, & Fuller, Margaret, 1843, The Dial, James Munroe & Co, London
Frei, Hans, 1992, Louis Henry Sullivan Artemis Verlags, Zurich.
Jansen, H W, 1982, Form Follows Function - or Does It? Modernist Design Theory and the History of Art,
Maarsen
Sprague, Paul E, 1979, The Drawings of Louis Henry Sullivan, Princeton University Press, New York.
Sullivan, Louis H, 1947, Kindergarten Chats and Other Writings, The Gallery Press, New York.

Sullivan, Louis H, 1963, The Testament of Stone, Northwestern University Press, New York.
Sullivan, Louis H, 1956, The Autobiography of an Idea, Dover Publications, New York.
Szarkowski, John, 2000, The Idea of Louis Henry Sullivan, Thames & Hudson, London.
Michl, Jan, 1995, Form Follows WHAT ? - The modernist notion of function as a carte blanche, IN: 1:50 Magazine of the Faculty of Architecture & Town Planning, Israel Institute of Technology nr. 10, p31-35
Morrison, Hugh, 1962, Louis Sullivan Prophet of Modern Architecture, W.W. Norton & Company, New York.
Taylor, Crombie, & Plank, Jeffrey, 2001, The Early Louis Sullivan Building Photographs, William Stout
Publishers, San Francisco.
Van Zanten, David, & Jordy, William, & De Wit, Wim, & Elstein, Rochelle Berger, 1986, Louis Sullivan - The
Function of Ornament, W.W. Norton & Company, New York.