I’m always surprised when this topic comes up, that there is such a substantial school of thought that does not feel architecture is art. I respectfully disagree. I’m a trained architect and co-partnered a Seattle based architecture firm for about 16 years. I may be the minority among the architecture community, but honestly, I’m always disconcerted by architects who do not consider themselves artists. It might be that I have a very broad-based idea of was art is. I see an auto-body specialist who can flawlessly rebuild a car that’s been crashed, as an artist. To me, having a refined skill set, that (aside from innate talent) takes substantial study, practice and time to develop to a professional level (wether it be a jewelry maker, screen printer, etc.) constitutes art. I realize many probably do not agree with this. I began combining art with my work in architecture about 5 years ago, and I’ve never felt so challenged in my life. I came from a pre-computer architecture curriculum, where we spent the first two years of study, mainly with abstract exercises that were also given to the art students in the building next door… figure-ground studies, shade and shadow, relief modeling, point/line/plane drawings, positive vs. negative space, descriptive geometry, color theory, and the list goes on. I’m sure academia has changed dramatically since then, as now most schools require incoming students to have a laptop and they’re working in CAD from day one. I actually don’t care much for the term ‘artist’, but rather perhaps, designer or maker. I think the reverse is true as well, in that an artist can make a successful transition into architecture, as the two fields share many of the same principals. James Turrell comes to mind as someone who bridges the gap successfully.
If an architect is not an artist, what are they? A builder? A construction specialist? A space-maker? One who enhances the human condition through the built environment? Hopefully, all of these. Personally, I'm flattered being considered an artist as an architect, but I’m always surprised how many architects seem almost offended by this title. What’s the deal, do architects think the importance of their profession is being undermined? It’s as if art is looked at as an undisciplined, superficial craft that does not require near the rigor, or critical thinking. I suppose this idea can be followed by another question… So what’s the difference between art and an acquired trade? Is a tailor or a metalsmith an artist? In my book, absolutely!
I think a lot of the argument arises from people wanting to distance the profession from the fine arts. When the word "Art" gets tossed around, the brain probably always thinks of the fine arts. Architecture doesn't fit that. Nor do most crafts. They're still an artform.
there is Art and there are within Art, applied arts. Think of applied arts as having a propose other than just existing as a marker or remnant of culture, buildings house things/activities people sit on furniture and drive in cars. These things have a basic application that justifies their design and the art and craft applied to them.
Architecture and by extension design is an applied art. Do we agree?
I was taught architecture is the highest art; art it is but functional art. then i always wondered why its grouped with engineering rather than art or liberal arts like clothing design & manufacturing and interior design are at the university?
s=r*(theta I bet those folks who told you that Architecture is the highest form of art were teaching architecture. You get the same speech / claim in almost any academic program.
Art with a capital A varies from architecture because it has no other functional value than its own existence as an investigation in the cultural milieu in which it was created. The "art" the original poster describes; car body repair, metal smiths, tailors, are more in the realm of craft with a focus on functionality - that is not to say these people are not highly skilled at what they do. Architecture is a different animal all together, where the intent is on functionality, space planning, consensus within a team environment, the list goes on. In addition, architecture is an allegoric practice, where the architect doesn't deal directly with the materials and means of production of what they are producing. The important distinction here is the difference between design and art. Are there people that blur the line..totally. Your example of Turrell is a good one - on the other side somebody like Hejduk comes close. The other major obstacle that prevents the two from being the same is institutional pedagogy - museums, galleries, universities, take the stance they are different.
Call it design instead of art. Design suggests there are parameters to reckon with, laws to comply with, people to please, not just an aesthetic goal (art).
Art can also be an allegoric practice. Many large scale works of art are not directly produced by the artist. Serra, Lin, Turrell, Goldsworthy, Heizer, etc...
Art also has material and natural constraints, spatial/experiential anticipations and planning, and structural considerations.
Ill quote myself on a previous thread...
"Design makes silence from noise, Art makes noise from silence."
It sounded good, but I don't agree with that statment 100% anymore as both art and design do not usually exist at either extreme/absolute. Its almost always a matter of degree. Clearly, a walgreens is less art than design, whereas the Venturi house is somewhere in between, but the walgreens with its fake archs and post modern references is also designed to make a certain statement or convey a certain message its not a purely a matter of form following function. A factory seems about as removed from art as architectire can be, where a FG project is highly sculptural and acts as a work of art and a functional space simultaneously . A turrell exhibit has more of a design component whereas a Pollack painting is really only constrained by the rules/techniques/processes/parameters set up by the author...
It almost always has a commercial imperative, is politically compliant, exists in a highly regulated space, almost always needs the approval of a client, has a strict performative set of obligations etc. etc. etc.
Art usually operates on the inverse of these criteria.
You're kidding if you think your an artist while designing buildings.
That is not to say that Art is better then architecture. They are simply different, with comparison between the two being an apples oranges situation.
"It almost always has a commercial imperative, is politically compliant, exists in a highly regulated space, almost always needs the approval of a client, has a strict performative set of obligations etc. etc. etc"
Doesn't this describe much of consumable art today, or are will still living in the 1920's?
maybe is has to do with the level of freedom in which somebody practices - art is commodified no doubt, but there is a romantic idea the artist does whatever they want no constraints, which is how many find their unique practices to begin with, but oftentimes shift into sell-able/repeatable products going to careerism. Architecture can go both ways as well - if you have an awesome client willing to take risks, there can be a lot of freedom in the practice too, allowing you to create an artful design....reality is though, 99% of our built environment is shit and is a directly correlation to the lack of artfulness in design for most.
"Doesn't this describe much of consumable art today, or are will still living in the 1920's?"
I totally agree with you, which is why you would not consider consumable works in the capital A art camp. Warhol et al. have been interested in this idea of the replicable work for decades, but this interrogation of the legitimacy of the 'art' piece is what seperates there work from the merely consumable.
"Also, ecnal, would you please specifically name those rare times when Architecture could be considered Art?"
That's kinda missing the point- that Art and Architecture are fundamentally different and comparison is mostly futile. For architecture to be art, in my mind it needs to practically stop being architecture. A recent example may be FAT's work with Greyson Perry for their 'house for essex'. That piece is essentially an artwork, enabled by an architect.
Art vs. Arch.
I’m always surprised when this topic comes up, that there is such a substantial school of thought that does not feel architecture is art. I respectfully disagree. I’m a trained architect and co-partnered a Seattle based architecture firm for about 16 years. I may be the minority among the architecture community, but honestly, I’m always disconcerted by architects who do not consider themselves artists. It might be that I have a very broad-based idea of was art is. I see an auto-body specialist who can flawlessly rebuild a car that’s been crashed, as an artist. To me, having a refined skill set, that (aside from innate talent) takes substantial study, practice and time to develop to a professional level (wether it be a jewelry maker, screen printer, etc.) constitutes art. I realize many probably do not agree with this. I began combining art with my work in architecture about 5 years ago, and I’ve never felt so challenged in my life. I came from a pre-computer architecture curriculum, where we spent the first two years of study, mainly with abstract exercises that were also given to the art students in the building next door… figure-ground studies, shade and shadow, relief modeling, point/line/plane drawings, positive vs. negative space, descriptive geometry, color theory, and the list goes on. I’m sure academia has changed dramatically since then, as now most schools require incoming students to have a laptop and they’re working in CAD from day one. I actually don’t care much for the term ‘artist’, but rather perhaps, designer or maker. I think the reverse is true as well, in that an artist can make a successful transition into architecture, as the two fields share many of the same principals. James Turrell comes to mind as someone who bridges the gap successfully.
If an architect is not an artist, what are they? A builder? A construction specialist? A space-maker? One who enhances the human condition through the built environment? Hopefully, all of these. Personally, I'm flattered being considered an artist as an architect, but I’m always surprised how many architects seem almost offended by this title. What’s the deal, do architects think the importance of their profession is being undermined? It’s as if art is looked at as an undisciplined, superficial craft that does not require near the rigor, or critical thinking. I suppose this idea can be followed by another question… So what’s the difference between art and an acquired trade? Is a tailor or a metalsmith an artist? In my book, absolutely!
I think a lot of the argument arises from people wanting to distance the profession from the fine arts. When the word "Art" gets tossed around, the brain probably always thinks of the fine arts. Architecture doesn't fit that. Nor do most crafts. They're still an artform.
there is Art and there are within Art, applied arts. Think of applied arts as having a propose other than just existing as a marker or remnant of culture, buildings house things/activities people sit on furniture and drive in cars. These things have a basic application that justifies their design and the art and craft applied to them.
Architecture and by extension design is an applied art. Do we agree?
Over and OUT
Peter N
Well it's not about money so it must be about art.
Some of it
I thought it was about keeping things dry and not on fire.
^ at the min. What about the max?
Max, generate like fluffy feelings?
Who has time for that? I have a beer advent calendar to open.
Sounds artsy. Does it generate fluffy feelings?
It certainly does..
I was taught architecture is the highest art; art it is but functional art. then i always wondered why its grouped with engineering rather than art or liberal arts like clothing design & manufacturing and interior design are at the university?
architecture is for those who are mediocre at art and too dumb for engineering programs xD
^ Not really
s=r*(theta I bet those folks who told you that Architecture is the highest form of art were teaching architecture. You get the same speech / claim in almost any academic program.
Over and OUT
Peter N
In many universities art and architecture are schools within the college of Liberal Arts, Architecture is not always pared with engineering.
Art with a capital A varies from architecture because it has no other functional value than its own existence as an investigation in the cultural milieu in which it was created. The "art" the original poster describes; car body repair, metal smiths, tailors, are more in the realm of craft with a focus on functionality - that is not to say these people are not highly skilled at what they do. Architecture is a different animal all together, where the intent is on functionality, space planning, consensus within a team environment, the list goes on. In addition, architecture is an allegoric practice, where the architect doesn't deal directly with the materials and means of production of what they are producing. The important distinction here is the difference between design and art. Are there people that blur the line..totally. Your example of Turrell is a good one - on the other side somebody like Hejduk comes close. The other major obstacle that prevents the two from being the same is institutional pedagogy - museums, galleries, universities, take the stance they are different.
Call it design instead of art. Design suggests there are parameters to reckon with, laws to comply with, people to please, not just an aesthetic goal (art).
Art can also be an allegoric practice. Many large scale works of art are not directly produced by the artist. Serra, Lin, Turrell, Goldsworthy, Heizer, etc...
Art also has material and natural constraints, spatial/experiential anticipations and planning, and structural considerations.
Ill quote myself on a previous thread...
"Design makes silence from noise, Art makes noise from silence."
It sounded good, but I don't agree with that statment 100% anymore as both art and design do not usually exist at either extreme/absolute. Its almost always a matter of degree. Clearly, a walgreens is less art than design, whereas the Venturi house is somewhere in between, but the walgreens with its fake archs and post modern references is also designed to make a certain statement or convey a certain message its not a purely a matter of form following function. A factory seems about as removed from art as architectire can be, where a FG project is highly sculptural and acts as a work of art and a functional space simultaneously . A turrell exhibit has more of a design component whereas a Pollack painting is really only constrained by the rules/techniques/processes/parameters set up by the author...
http://qz.com/823204/graphic-design-legend-milton-glaser-dispels-a-universal-misunderstanding-of-design-and-art/
Architecture could rarely be considered Art.
It almost always has a commercial imperative, is politically compliant, exists in a highly regulated space, almost always needs the approval of a client, has a strict performative set of obligations etc. etc. etc.
Art usually operates on the inverse of these criteria.
You're kidding if you think your an artist while designing buildings.
That is not to say that Art is better then architecture. They are simply different, with comparison between the two being an apples oranges situation.
Nice post, ecnal. I agree 100%.
"It almost always has a commercial imperative, is politically compliant, exists in a highly regulated space, almost always needs the approval of a client, has a strict performative set of obligations etc. etc. etc"
Doesn't this describe much of consumable art today, or are will still living in the 1920's?
maybe is has to do with the level of freedom in which somebody practices - art is commodified no doubt, but there is a romantic idea the artist does whatever they want no constraints, which is how many find their unique practices to begin with, but oftentimes shift into sell-able/repeatable products going to careerism. Architecture can go both ways as well - if you have an awesome client willing to take risks, there can be a lot of freedom in the practice too, allowing you to create an artful design....reality is though, 99% of our built environment is shit and is a directly correlation to the lack of artfulness in design for most.
"Doesn't this describe much of consumable art today, or are will still living in the 1920's?"
I totally agree with you, which is why you would not consider consumable works in the capital A art camp. Warhol et al. have been interested in this idea of the replicable work for decades, but this interrogation of the legitimacy of the 'art' piece is what seperates there work from the merely consumable.
"Also, ecnal, would you please specifically name those rare times when Architecture could be considered Art?"
That's kinda missing the point- that Art and Architecture are fundamentally different and comparison is mostly futile. For architecture to be art, in my mind it needs to practically stop being architecture. A recent example may be FAT's work with Greyson Perry for their 'house for essex'. That piece is essentially an artwork, enabled by an architect.
I think some people have an overly narrow definition of art. Poor souls.
ecnal had some great insight then referenced that piece of junk project and lost all credibility.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.