The surface of meaning.

A stimulating discussion on the nature of the facade, at the Royal Academy in London, prompted the thought that the phrase 'skin deep' may be taking on a non-pejorative meaning. Architects today are showing increasing interest in what, not so long ago, might have been dismissed as indulgent ornament, decoration or facadeism; these days patterning, colour and wrapping form an unembarrassed part of the design vocabulary. A forthcoming book from Harvard, edited by Farshid Moussavi of Foreign Office Architects and showing the work of her students on this topic, is titled The Function of Ornament; this dextrous phrase neatly pulls the rug from the proposition that artistic or architectural embellishment, whether integral or applied, is in opposition to the 'functional tradition' so beloved of Modernists and their successors. Denys Lasdun declared that, in his design for his National Theatre building in London, he had 'abolished the facade', and you knew what he meant; however, the idea that walls (particularly long ones in concrete) could so easily avoid the meanings embedded in surface, appearance and impact is impossible to maintain. Lasdun had expected lichen to grow all over his masterpiece, not anticipating the effects of increasing chemical pollution. There might otherwise have been a marvellous combination of nature and artifice that would certainly have prompted a re-examination of our ideas about image.

The long arm of functionalism is rarely absent from debate about surface, however. Geometric patterning relates to site, plan or constructional system; meaning derives from tradition, population, topography; form and facade could both describe or disguise the cultural histories of the inhabitants or activities behind. But how often do you hear an architect (other than Will Alsop) simply say: 'I made it look that way because it pleases me?' Is pleasure not the province of architecture?

There was more than one reference at the Royal Academy to the work of Venturi and that still marvellous comparison between the duck and decorated shed. As Moussavi pointed out, 'blank typology' buildings of increasing size have prompted an increased interest in what it is you do with the undecorated shed. Any decision is a decision about facade, and as she pointed out, the way in which Sullivan treated office window reveals, and the way Mies applied vertical mullions for visual effect on the Seagram Tower, suggest a history of ornament or decoration within Modernism more complex than commonly assumed. This subject will continue to exercise the imagination of the architect and the interest of the cultural historian; what do the facades of a Baroque church tell us that a billboard does not? In a world of differentiated seamless patterning, are we invited to enjoy, or condemned to suffer, the same difference everywhere?