painting is a passion for me. what i've pondered a lot is the relationship between architecture and painting. Is it true that architects tend to be effective painters?
i suppose painters under the influence of an architectural mindset paint under a different realm, in which their objective is not to create aesthetic paintings only to the eye, but to create 'spaces' on the canvas to affect our emotions and our reaction to the painting.
when i talk of the word 'effective', i talk of the ability for the painting to capture our attention and emotion. Because architecture is meant to affect our attention and awareness around us, and is the art of creating spaces for a function, are architects 'good' painters? because if architects think of a canvas as a 'structure', then the painting might as well 'behave' like one, making the painting an effective way to capture our senses.
Whoa there kid save it for zee Germans. You’ll be in grad school soon enough and it looks like you’ve got the first page of a nice term paper lined up there already.
i too am an architect, painter and student...and I have a question about your 'purpose' for architecture.
>>>Because architecture is meant to affect our attention and awareness around us, and is the art of creating spaces for a function<<<
by default, I think architecture does the things you think it should. How can it not? Also, I would get you to question the idea that architecture must be co-dependant with "function". For me, architecture is about transcending the knowable, the visable, and (to mis-quote kahn) the measurable.
Now, in my research, architects that do the above with form (contingent form, not platonic form) generally do that with other medium. Was Corbu a good painter? Probably not...but I sure am glad he painted...because it showed him the ideas he needed to fullfill architecturally. Is Thom Mayne a good painter? Probably not...but again, I'm glad he paints. The same with holl, scarpa, zaha (albeit digital), etc.
Formally, there is a lot in common with the potential of canvas and the potential of space. It is quite exciting to think about. In my humble opinion, if architecture was geared, once again, at being Art, it could reclaim its role as an inspiring and emotional force instead of comidified junk, digital masturbation, and glorified engineering.
paint my young friend, paint. Stop worrying about if its any good or not. The critics will do that for you soon enough.
architects vs. painters
painting is a passion for me. what i've pondered a lot is the relationship between architecture and painting. Is it true that architects tend to be effective painters?
i suppose painters under the influence of an architectural mindset paint under a different realm, in which their objective is not to create aesthetic paintings only to the eye, but to create 'spaces' on the canvas to affect our emotions and our reaction to the painting.
when i talk of the word 'effective', i talk of the ability for the painting to capture our attention and emotion. Because architecture is meant to affect our attention and awareness around us, and is the art of creating spaces for a function, are architects 'good' painters? because if architects think of a canvas as a 'structure', then the painting might as well 'behave' like one, making the painting an effective way to capture our senses.
any thoughts?
Whoa there kid save it for zee Germans. You’ll be in grad school soon enough and it looks like you’ve got the first page of a nice term paper lined up there already.
i too am an architect, painter and student...and I have a question about your 'purpose' for architecture.
>>>Because architecture is meant to affect our attention and awareness around us, and is the art of creating spaces for a function<<<
by default, I think architecture does the things you think it should. How can it not? Also, I would get you to question the idea that architecture must be co-dependant with "function". For me, architecture is about transcending the knowable, the visable, and (to mis-quote kahn) the measurable.
Now, in my research, architects that do the above with form (contingent form, not platonic form) generally do that with other medium. Was Corbu a good painter? Probably not...but I sure am glad he painted...because it showed him the ideas he needed to fullfill architecturally. Is Thom Mayne a good painter? Probably not...but again, I'm glad he paints. The same with holl, scarpa, zaha (albeit digital), etc.
Formally, there is a lot in common with the potential of canvas and the potential of space. It is quite exciting to think about. In my humble opinion, if architecture was geared, once again, at being Art, it could reclaim its role as an inspiring and emotional force instead of comidified junk, digital masturbation, and glorified engineering.
paint my young friend, paint. Stop worrying about if its any good or not. The critics will do that for you soon enough.
peace.
ahh there's this guy frank stella that you might wanna check into...
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.