I will make this as clear and concise as I can. Let me know if this makes sense.
The question here is, why does the matter of form and content resonate with architecturally aligned writers ? What about formalism can cause critics to take issue?
The critique of formalism can dismiss work leaning too much towards form in a spectrum or scale of form and content. A prerequisite is a duality of form and content. Whether it should be or not, form and content have been construed in analogues such as the following:
Form is to exterior, as content is to interior.
Form is to book cover, as content is to writing.
Form is to bottle, as content is to fluid.
Form is to enclosure, as content is to program.
Form is to building, as content is to occupants.
NB: I do not subscribe or buy into these, but I see them, they are out there. Not sure how durable any analogy is. I see these, and most analogues or dichotomies as spectrums and scales where some degree of balance and synthesis may be found to optimize any design.
drdrr.work 