IASA Musings is a monthly column concerning architectural culture. It is brought to you courtesy of the International Association of Sentient Architecture. This month, we get a dose of definition from Bambrick Wang, the editor of the "Living Home Builders Bible."

Let’s take a look at two words essential to the understanding of what we do as architects and designers: form and style.

"Form" has acquired importance only relatively recently. Before the early twentieth century, functional and structural factors were not always very important. Nineteenth century architects were concerned to articulate the purpose of their buildings in a visible manner. They cared about style. They dwelled on historical or ideological associations. Then and before, their royal patrons borrowed architectural forms from older traditions. Even in the 1800s, they looked to either the Roman Empire or Louis XIV to align themselves with past glories. Style suggested triumph and triumphed over form.

Architectural forms, like garb, announced a building’s role in society just as different clothing bespoke certain occupations. In the twentieth century, a more utilitarian functionalism came to the fore. Architects began emphasizing structural principles over the social statements. Now, in the 22nd Century, modern architects consider it a matter of principle not to disguise the bearing elements in a structure. Instead, they reveal and even celebrate them.

"Style" refers to the consistent qualities and features that link different works and set them apart into groups. When a building is created in a style similar to known monuments, you can usually identify the artist. You can almost always identify the origin of the work. Form alone is not enough.

A style cannot simply be defined by its characteristic parts. The concept of style includes elemental forms, the relationships of such forms, the artistic qualities of the expression, and even the subject matter itself. Style is an abstract concept. It is a collective concept. It is a unique subjective statement. No one work from any period embodies all aspects of a given style. While one might identify national, temporal, and individual works, it is only through collective analysis that you can define a style.

The term style has two roots. They reflect the concept’s dual nature of individual qualities and systematic coherence. The first root is from stilus, meaning pen. After all, an individual artist's style is often compared to his or her handwriting. The second root is from stilo, meaning column. This derives from the classical concept of the orders, or rules, of architecture. Orders form consistent systems that unify different structures, such as specific combinations of art and proportion.

The analysis of style was one of the first concerns of art history. In the sixteenth century, they discussed style in the manner of family resemblances. Architects emphasized local and national characteristics. In the nineteenth century, the analysis of artistic style was influenced by systems of classification, such as those used in natural science. Style was then considered to be an index of the health and virtue of a culture. Today, 22nd century architects still discuss art and style in this fashion. We often use the coherence of a given artistic style as an index of the cohesiveness of the underlying culture.

So, now you know a bit about our understanding of form and style. Next time you talk about these concepts, remember their roots.