for’m

FOR’M was published a full decade after the publication of the preceding student journal. Its title reflected both its origin —the student forum— and its modest format, a folded and stapled leaflet. The first issue notes that one of the forum’s aims sought to promote “some sort of student publication.” The inaugural issue opened with a tentative note: For’m was a publication of the architecture students’ forum intended to appear monthly “if all goes well.” This hesitant tone may have undermined its sustainability from the outset. The editorial outlined only a broad intention, framing the journal as a vehicle for student expression that would succeed only if students contributed letters, articles, editorials, cartoons, and other material —the greater the variety, the stronger the publication.

This openness offered, at best, the advantage of lightness and, at worst, the drawback of lacking direction. This playfulness extended into surveys that asked about favorite architects (Louis Kahn, F. LL. Wright, I.M. Pei, Richard Meier, Palladio); least favorite architects (Philip Johnson, Peter Eisenman, Edward Durrell Stone, Robert Stern); “turn-on” words (anticipation, tension, contradiction); “turn-off” words (architectonic, construction, solution); along with an equally eclectic catalog of concerns, professional aims, and lifetime goals. Even the imminent appointment of a new dean elicited neither enthusiasm nor opposition.

Lectures were divided into “theirs” —those organized by the School, such as Frank Gehry— and “ours” —those hosted by the Forum, such as Philip Johnson. Perhaps the most substantial contributions were interviews with John Hejduk, Jorge Silvetti, and Harry Cobb, along with the publication of competition results. The third issue featured a thoughtful editorial on the importance of drawing in relation to architecture, prompted by the Autonomous Architecture exhibition at the Fogg (now Harvard Art Museums), sponsored by The Harvard Architecture Review. Yet aside from these moments of reflection and a few thoughtful contributions, the five issues—as a whole— remained largely unfocused. The only consistent feature across issues was a concluding “coloring page.”