Form follows Function or Function follows Form?

It's quite the chicken-egg question that it's difficult to differentiate. However, there's always an explanation for it. Form Follows Function is a principle associated with modern architecture and industrial in the 20th century. The principle is that the shape of a building or object should be primarily based upon its intended function or purpose. [wikipedia]
I would say that Form follows function is more of a reversed method of designing a functional product. You see, i would imagine that a simple chair, distorted, twisted, bloated, and shaped into some wacky looking modern design, would still function as a chair. In fact, i think that's how chair designers think of how chairs are now designed. Form comes first then only the function would later be added or adapt to the form.



However, I would still doubt that Form follows function. If I were a chair designer I would think both in parallel if that's even possible. Matters such as "how the chair would look like and where is the seating placed". That's mind-boggling. But chair is a chair. Where its purpose is singular and simple. What about Function follows form? what's the difference? It's the other way round obviously. The designer would first prioritize its function before making out its form. Like a laptop for instance. It would still function as it is but later on its form; the external look of it would be designed and make it appealing to consumers.



What about this one?



I'm not so sure if it's called "The Crooked House" as officially, but this bizarre architecture can be found at Sopot, Poland. Obviously this building is "Form follows function". You may bombard it with questions and how radical its design goes. But I think that bizarre designs makes up for it. How horrendous a building looks, but still functions the way it's suppose to; that's witchcraft!