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.
saw the movie 'pollock' on ifc last night. he understood how to render space better than most architects i've met. really beautiful. reminded me of the movie in which you watched pollock himself at work (a situation which the newer movie skewers).
i had a hot/cold relationship with pollock until saw some of his really big pieces a few years ago. realized how impt the 'in person' visit was for his painting. reproductions are practically useless. i was hypnotized.
I painted the ceiling in my kitchen last spring. Didn't turn out quite as spectacular as the Sistene Chapel. Perhaps I should have used other colors than just 'white'? Then again, Im pretty certain that people would not only question my taste, but also my mental health had I painted it full with husky little cherubs blowing horns and touching one another (I've never been to the chapel, but thats how I imagine it)
But yeah, I agree with Strawbeary that it's all about seeing, so yes, most architects are pretty decent artists as well (altho perhaps not painting specificly), atleast in the effectivness aspect you mention.
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 between the potential of the 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.
there's an interesting book called "Architecture and Cubism" by Eve Blau that's worth a look, and you should also consider the theories of the classical avant-garde (cubism, futurism, dada, de stijl, constructivism) with regard to the topic. EL Lissitzky's PROUN paintings, Theo van Doesburg's theories of spatial organization, etc. Hershell Chipp's "Theories of Modern Art" is a good sourcebook for all of these. Bauhaus is also right in there also (as is Black Mountain College as Bauhaus' inheritor).
aemkei- I painted little designs around my kitchen light fixture on the ceiling. They are yellow deco designs from my head. I get lots of compliments. That is painting on architecture. he he.
But I paint images of architecture too, it is a good lesson in shade/shadow and spatial relationships, lights and darks and figure/ground, composition and depth of field - all those artsy things that really do apply to architectural aesthetics as well. I included a lot of painting in my portfolio for school admissions and for getting a job after graduation and people seem impressed.
Feb 28, 05 10:06 am ·
·
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.
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?
could you compare donatello's david to reniassance architecture
painting is seeing - so it is very good for architecture.
saw the movie 'pollock' on ifc last night. he understood how to render space better than most architects i've met. really beautiful. reminded me of the movie in which you watched pollock himself at work (a situation which the newer movie skewers).
i had a hot/cold relationship with pollock until saw some of his really big pieces a few years ago. realized how impt the 'in person' visit was for his painting. reproductions are practically useless. i was hypnotized.
'course his life was a mess. too bad.
Michelangelo was pretty good at both too.
I painted the ceiling in my kitchen last spring. Didn't turn out quite as spectacular as the Sistene Chapel. Perhaps I should have used other colors than just 'white'? Then again, Im pretty certain that people would not only question my taste, but also my mental health had I painted it full with husky little cherubs blowing horns and touching one another (I've never been to the chapel, but thats how I imagine it)
But yeah, I agree with Strawbeary that it's all about seeing, so yes, most architects are pretty decent artists as well (altho perhaps not painting specificly), atleast in the effectivness aspect you mention.
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 between the potential of the 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.
just for giggles, check out the work of charles demuth. He deals with the compression and re-presentation of space-time.
check out frank stella. also, your homework assignment- compare and contrast the op art work of kenneth noland with the gehry's work of the 80's.
very interesting. thanks for you input
there's an interesting book called "Architecture and Cubism" by Eve Blau that's worth a look, and you should also consider the theories of the classical avant-garde (cubism, futurism, dada, de stijl, constructivism) with regard to the topic. EL Lissitzky's PROUN paintings, Theo van Doesburg's theories of spatial organization, etc. Hershell Chipp's "Theories of Modern Art" is a good sourcebook for all of these. Bauhaus is also right in there also (as is Black Mountain College as Bauhaus' inheritor).
aemkei- I painted little designs around my kitchen light fixture on the ceiling. They are yellow deco designs from my head. I get lots of compliments. That is painting on architecture. he he.
But I paint images of architecture too, it is a good lesson in shade/shadow and spatial relationships, lights and darks and figure/ground, composition and depth of field - all those artsy things that really do apply to architectural aesthetics as well. I included a lot of painting in my portfolio for school admissions and for getting a job after graduation and people seem impressed.
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.