without an artistic or theoretical basis a building is just a shelter (not architecture)
i am being asked to argue against this idea for a debate and would appreciate any opinions on the matter, Laugier's and Lodoli's ideas are a place to start but any personal opinions will be helpful.
then, i suppose there would be stupid shelter with inferior brains and intelligent shelter with superior brains....and the intelligent shelter would constitute something higher than the stupid shelter.
exactly, and then it would know whether or not it had an "artistic or theoretical basis" and there would be no question about it.
We could just ask "are you architecture?"
to which, the building would reply either "duh, what is architecture?"
or,
"why yes, nice fellow, I am architecture. And if you cross reference my wood columns with Laugier and my textile-like wall with Semper, you will surely see that I am squarely set within a theoretical basis."
any piece of art has a THEME.. a book, a piece of music, a painting, sculpture, and building..
its like a thread that holds everything together..
when i design, i start with some sort of idea that encompasses environment and function.
then this idea manifest itself from schematic plans, to details..
of course the buildings cannot speak, they have no ontological basis.....but if the building presents the residue or mark of intention, then it consequently provides a structure or order that is worthy of reading and interpretation. in this process, the observer becomes the voice of the building and the producer of architecture.
can the lack of inention also serve as an "order that is worthy of reading and interpretation."
Every building began as an intention unless it spontaneously arrived on the earth's surface. Even if it did, would it be architecture until it became occupied? If not, then architecture is the result of a desire for occupation.
a much more interesting question than your previous one because it allows us to explore the motivation behind intention.
the big box down the street is based heavily in intention, just as the library or museum is......but the motivation and desired affect of the intention is radically distinct.
in one case it is a desire to fill a space, and in the other to occupy. one is quantitative and the other is qualitative.
I guess my problem with the question is just a general, you know, ambiguity. Who's theoretical basis are we talking about here? Is Laugier's hut architecture? Are Eisenman's diagrams architecture? Eisenman doesn't talk about Laugier in reference to his own theory, so does that mean it isn't architecture? What kind of framework are we talking about here? If theorist hasn't theorized something, it isn't worth the label of architecture? Theorists are usually pretty good at making obscure connections, I'm sure they can fit almost anything into the realm of architecture with enough mental gymnastics.
first, why is architecture an "elevated" status?
second, how can you be so exclusive as to call a layperson devoid of "knowledge of the artistic or theoretical aspects of architecture"? If a first year architecture student built a building is it architecture?
for instance a farm house, barn or grain silo from an 1892 oklahoma farm. it is possible that there was no artistic or theoretical intent but there was a functional goal and process to building, it was painted red for some reason. is this architecture or just building. vernacular building or vernacular architecture. there are certainly building that do have a artistic or theoretical basis that are still just a shelter and nothing more.
ok, you people need to define what you're arguing ABOUT!
obviously you can't argue about how GOOD your definition of architecture is, it's relative! ..However, I think the initial question asks about the DEGREE TO WHICH ARTISTIC INTENT MATTERS.
For example, if we look at Arch from a PURELY FUNCTIONAL standpoint, than any two buildings that look the same, are the same. If we look at arch from the standpoint of ARTISTIC INTENT, then the building that was made to look a particular way ON PURPOSE, to CONVEY some sort of particular modification of space [specifically AESTHETIC, not functional] has more artistic merit.
the idea that there's a difference between "architecture" and "shelter" is ruining the architectural profession and keeping us poorly paid and powerless.
The faith in "architecture" as a sacred category of buildings is ludicrous. It justifies the ivory tower isolation and snobbery toward non-architects that prevents our profession from being relevant to most peoeples' lives. It encourages us not to build. It justifies failures to engage the public through the conviction that if people don't like our designs it's just because they don't understand. It encourages the most talented designers to spend their careers in universities awash in critical respect, while leaving the construction of the residential and commercial spaces of our daily lives to the less ambitious and less talented. "Architecture" as a special category of buildings leads to a vicious cycle of isolation and irrelevance.
All buildings are architecture. It's all the responsibility of architects. Toll Brothers is more relevant to professional practice today than Corbu. Deal with it.
It has been said that 'architecture is that which is unnecessary'. I forget by whom. I think that to a certain extent this is true.
As far as i see it architecture is about modifying ones environment. Bending nature to our own needs. In that respect everyone who makes even the most simple decision about their own environment is an 'architect'. So, I guess that every intentional act which alters our environment can be considered 'architecture'.
The question is guess is whether we can really call 'architecture', 'art'?
To get back to the original question; why can't the theory of a building be to provide shelter? Surely I can theorise that if i build a roof over my head I will stay dry? If this is true then every inttntion is just a case of scale or relevance.
A building certainly doesn't become a good building by having a book of theory applied to it. Makes it more interesting, but not more important as a piece of architecture.
Artistic talen/input is subjective, so that's a tough one to clearly see the lines where it stops and ends. Dealing with a client, site, budget, program, etc., can all be creative.
In the end, architecture is shelter and sculpture. It can do a lot, but that's what it is. I peronsally think the 'argument' that architecture is art is bs - of course it can be. Anything you, or we as humans, create has the potential to be art, the medium does not matter.
When scrutinized, most human artifacts exhibit existential signatures of an artistic or theoretical approach to their design. A cardboard box is an example of 'shelter' when used by a deranged gypo to get out of the rain A cookie cut tract home or a strip mall on the other hand are every bit as qualitatively dissimilar from 'shelter' as a published archi-theory-crapola thingamagig. All buildings are equally describable as 'architecture' when the definition is based on the exhibition of art and/or theory in their design - and I for one am down with that definition. It's cool.
get a life out of this fourm fill. you are mr. negative. everytime i see your assinine posts i get ill. go argue with the wall.
in spite of all the rhetoric flying around, architecture is still just defined as " the art or practice of designing and building structures by a conscious act" (or such similar definitions)
if someone does that REALLY poorly, it is still be architecture but just really bad architecture. is "automotive design" a term only used for Mercedes and Porsche? A Hyundai is still designed, just not nearly as good. all buildings are really architecture.
architecture is not something exclusive to guys like us with educations, licenses, and big "theories". get over ourselves. we just MAY do architecture a bit better, not exclusively.
it is possible to imagine art like theory, as a conceptual schema underlying or representing the world, when these representative systems are believed to be perfect and hermetic, ie completely accesible to human knowledge and detached (immune) from the world it represents; there can be no concepts unintelligible to the human mind. in this sense of art and theory, architecture is neither for it grounds us in this world through experience and is not systemic but communicative. a discourse between the transcendent and the multitude rather than a transcendental order.
building is (architecture with autism) ideological (function is an ideology, ¥£$ is an ideology), architecture is ideological, architecture is inescapable, there is nothing (not building anyway) outside of architecture, you are always living with something created intensionally. as long as we live there will be architecture, but the same cannot be said of the reverse.
as far as veux 1'sessses primary dilemma goes, and to a certain extent, as far as this thread os headed...i think one path to consider would be to take into account the duration of an architecture/building/shelter. if a culture designs and builds a temple to the gods 3000 years ago and we still visit it by the masses today...is that architecture?
by the same token...and this actually just came to mind... people of the muslims faith face west and place a mat on the ground often in an unspecified/serendipitous place in order to worship, correct? this lasts only a short time, yet they have created a place, a condition which observers notice andrespect is this not architecture? the creation of a place for worship...they carry the only material they need on their back...
if a person builds a makeshift horizontal plane to shelter themselves from a rainstorm then destroys it when the sun comes out...is this merely building? it has meaning and intention for the person who was kept dry yet no one else in the world saw it.
i guess the point is...what is meaningful/intentional to one person/culture could not even exist to another...
i think theory is definitely one thing and intention/meaning is another...it seems as though theory can only come before the manisfestation where as intention/meaning can be inserted afterwards.
without an artistic or theoretical basis
without an artistic or theoretical basis a building is just a shelter (not architecture)
i am being asked to argue against this idea for a debate and would appreciate any opinions on the matter, Laugier's and Lodoli's ideas are a place to start but any personal opinions will be helpful.
artistic or theoretical basis in what?
in general...any theoretical basis or artistic intent
What does either basis or intent have to do with anything?
what does art or theory have to do with anything?
So do only artists and theorists make architecture?
Is it only architecture after an artist or theorist has pondered it?
an early hideaway shelter for the war/hunt injured to be picked up later.
it has got, theory, artistry and brains behind it. it sure is architecture..
shelter came first and give birth to architecture., a fatherless bastard...
and it sucks..
Why do architect's think there is something higher than shelter?
What if there's only shelter with brains?
then, i suppose there would be stupid shelter with inferior brains and intelligent shelter with superior brains....and the intelligent shelter would constitute something higher than the stupid shelter.
exactly, and then it would know whether or not it had an "artistic or theoretical basis" and there would be no question about it.
We could just ask "are you architecture?"
to which, the building would reply either "duh, what is architecture?"
or,
"why yes, nice fellow, I am architecture. And if you cross reference my wood columns with Laugier and my textile-like wall with Semper, you will surely see that I am squarely set within a theoretical basis."
under which theoretical basis do you belong?
you look like a tschumi but I could swear I see a little Eisenman in you.
Are you sure you don't have a little Eisenman in you?
Do you want some?
Excuse me, but are those Colin Rowe's you are wearing?
Why yes, yes they are.
Thank you.
Are you feeling a little Robert Slutzky today?
Hey there fine architecture. That is one mighty-fine proportional system you got going there. Is that Alberti or Palladio?
any piece of art has a THEME.. a book, a piece of music, a painting, sculpture, and building..
its like a thread that holds everything together..
when i design, i start with some sort of idea that encompasses environment and function.
then this idea manifest itself from schematic plans, to details..
that doesn't mean you make architecture...
sorry plexus.. i don't think i was of any help..
good luck with your argument..
i think you should begin with a question "why shelter isn't architecture?"
I think its an exercise in sophistry, but that's just the kind of crap academia wants.
of course the buildings cannot speak, they have no ontological basis.....but if the building presents the residue or mark of intention, then it consequently provides a structure or order that is worthy of reading and interpretation. in this process, the observer becomes the voice of the building and the producer of architecture.
can the lack of inention also serve as an "order that is worthy of reading and interpretation."
Every building began as an intention unless it spontaneously arrived on the earth's surface. Even if it did, would it be architecture until it became occupied? If not, then architecture is the result of a desire for occupation.
a much more interesting question than your previous one because it allows us to explore the motivation behind intention.
the big box down the street is based heavily in intention, just as the library or museum is......but the motivation and desired affect of the intention is radically distinct.
in one case it is a desire to fill a space, and in the other to occupy. one is quantitative and the other is qualitative.
I find your lack of a theoretical basis most troubling.
Did the big box follow the blue or red Modulor sequence?
buffalo fill you are just annoying.
if you have to ask...........
you are a dumb building
I guess my problem with the question is just a general, you know, ambiguity. Who's theoretical basis are we talking about here? Is Laugier's hut architecture? Are Eisenman's diagrams architecture? Eisenman doesn't talk about Laugier in reference to his own theory, so does that mean it isn't architecture? What kind of framework are we talking about here? If theorist hasn't theorized something, it isn't worth the label of architecture? Theorists are usually pretty good at making obscure connections, I'm sure they can fit almost anything into the realm of architecture with enough mental gymnastics.
first, why is architecture an "elevated" status?
second, how can you be so exclusive as to call a layperson devoid of "knowledge of the artistic or theoretical aspects of architecture"? If a first year architecture student built a building is it architecture?
for instance a farm house, barn or grain silo from an 1892 oklahoma farm. it is possible that there was no artistic or theoretical intent but there was a functional goal and process to building, it was painted red for some reason. is this architecture or just building. vernacular building or vernacular architecture. there are certainly building that do have a artistic or theoretical basis that are still just a shelter and nothing more.
If you insist that "architecture" must have "meaning," then why not concentrate on the ways in which buildings can convey meaning.
ok, you people need to define what you're arguing ABOUT!
obviously you can't argue about how GOOD your definition of architecture is, it's relative! ..However, I think the initial question asks about the DEGREE TO WHICH ARTISTIC INTENT MATTERS.
For example, if we look at Arch from a PURELY FUNCTIONAL standpoint, than any two buildings that look the same, are the same. If we look at arch from the standpoint of ARTISTIC INTENT, then the building that was made to look a particular way ON PURPOSE, to CONVEY some sort of particular modification of space [specifically AESTHETIC, not functional] has more artistic merit.
Who is to judge? Well, that's why we're agruing!
the idea that there's a difference between "architecture" and "shelter" is ruining the architectural profession and keeping us poorly paid and powerless.
The faith in "architecture" as a sacred category of buildings is ludicrous. It justifies the ivory tower isolation and snobbery toward non-architects that prevents our profession from being relevant to most peoeples' lives. It encourages us not to build. It justifies failures to engage the public through the conviction that if people don't like our designs it's just because they don't understand. It encourages the most talented designers to spend their careers in universities awash in critical respect, while leaving the construction of the residential and commercial spaces of our daily lives to the less ambitious and less talented. "Architecture" as a special category of buildings leads to a vicious cycle of isolation and irrelevance.
All buildings are architecture. It's all the responsibility of architects. Toll Brothers is more relevant to professional practice today than Corbu. Deal with it.
It has been said that 'architecture is that which is unnecessary'. I forget by whom. I think that to a certain extent this is true.
As far as i see it architecture is about modifying ones environment. Bending nature to our own needs. In that respect everyone who makes even the most simple decision about their own environment is an 'architect'. So, I guess that every intentional act which alters our environment can be considered 'architecture'.
The question is guess is whether we can really call 'architecture', 'art'?
To get back to the original question; why can't the theory of a building be to provide shelter? Surely I can theorise that if i build a roof over my head I will stay dry? If this is true then every inttntion is just a case of scale or relevance.
art, science, and philosophy is all there is. everything else can be broken down to these. architecture lies at the nexus of the three.
here here scottaway...
to build is to create architecture. that's not to say that there isn't opinion regarding good and bad architecture, an entirely separate argument.
as an answer to the original question, i will offer that a building with an artistic or theoretical basis is still in the end just a shelter.
A building certainly doesn't become a good building by having a book of theory applied to it. Makes it more interesting, but not more important as a piece of architecture.
Artistic talen/input is subjective, so that's a tough one to clearly see the lines where it stops and ends. Dealing with a client, site, budget, program, etc., can all be creative.
In the end, architecture is shelter and sculpture. It can do a lot, but that's what it is. I peronsally think the 'argument' that architecture is art is bs - of course it can be. Anything you, or we as humans, create has the potential to be art, the medium does not matter.
i think its a question of value..
architecture is created after the critics look at it, otherwise its just a building..
To me, wondering if a shelter is 'enough' to be called architecture is like wondering if a clear sunny day qualifies as having weather.
A wasp's nest is architecture.
A parking space carved out of snow is architecture.
Sitting on a log at the edge of a meadow is architecture.
Anyone calling anything 'just' a shelter has never been caught in a storm.
ok, there is no shelter.. it just good or bad architecture..
architecture as glorified cave or tent or barn: as in the Chapel of King's College, Cambridge?
welcome to the age of neo-paganism..
The difference between art and architecture is that no one has to live inside a painting.
no one has to live inside a building for it to be Architecture
When scrutinized, most human artifacts exhibit existential signatures of an artistic or theoretical approach to their design. A cardboard box is an example of 'shelter' when used by a deranged gypo to get out of the rain A cookie cut tract home or a strip mall on the other hand are every bit as qualitatively dissimilar from 'shelter' as a published archi-theory-crapola thingamagig. All buildings are equally describable as 'architecture' when the definition is based on the exhibition of art and/or theory in their design - and I for one am down with that definition. It's cool.
. . . but the term 'building' is misleading when placed into this context.
veux1 "buffalo fill you are just annoying."
DITTO.
get a life out of this fourm fill. you are mr. negative. everytime i see your assinine posts i get ill. go argue with the wall.
in spite of all the rhetoric flying around, architecture is still just defined as " the art or practice of designing and building structures by a conscious act" (or such similar definitions)
if someone does that REALLY poorly, it is still be architecture but just really bad architecture. is "automotive design" a term only used for Mercedes and Porsche? A Hyundai is still designed, just not nearly as good. all buildings are really architecture.
architecture is not something exclusive to guys like us with educations, licenses, and big "theories". get over ourselves. we just MAY do architecture a bit better, not exclusively.
i keep seeing the child from the matrix saying over and over... "There is no shelter..."
it's all subjective anyway...
it is possible to imagine art like theory, as a conceptual schema underlying or representing the world, when these representative systems are believed to be perfect and hermetic, ie completely accesible to human knowledge and detached (immune) from the world it represents; there can be no concepts unintelligible to the human mind. in this sense of art and theory, architecture is neither for it grounds us in this world through experience and is not systemic but communicative. a discourse between the transcendent and the multitude rather than a transcendental order.
building is (architecture with autism) ideological (function is an ideology, ¥£$ is an ideology), architecture is ideological, architecture is inescapable, there is nothing (not building anyway) outside of architecture, you are always living with something created intensionally. as long as we live there will be architecture, but the same cannot be said of the reverse.
as far as veux 1'sessses primary dilemma goes, and to a certain extent, as far as this thread os headed...i think one path to consider would be to take into account the duration of an architecture/building/shelter. if a culture designs and builds a temple to the gods 3000 years ago and we still visit it by the masses today...is that architecture?
by the same token...and this actually just came to mind... people of the muslims faith face west and place a mat on the ground often in an unspecified/serendipitous place in order to worship, correct? this lasts only a short time, yet they have created a place, a condition which observers notice andrespect is this not architecture? the creation of a place for worship...they carry the only material they need on their back...
if a person builds a makeshift horizontal plane to shelter themselves from a rainstorm then destroys it when the sun comes out...is this merely building? it has meaning and intention for the person who was kept dry yet no one else in the world saw it.
i guess the point is...what is meaningful/intentional to one person/culture could not even exist to another...
i think theory is definitely one thing and intention/meaning is another...it seems as though theory can only come before the manisfestation where as intention/meaning can be inserted afterwards.
"firmitas, utilitas, VENUSTAS" -vitruvius
is a shelter beautiful?
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.