If we continue to allow architecture to be measured and classified as an art, then we are going to find ourselves in galleries selling our renderings while investors build our environment. Where is all of our content? I think architecture should also be the mediator between art and science, but we need to get serious and get our hands on the technology that passes over our field. Why does NASA get to have all of the fun?! Do we really need so many nuclear submarines?! Iphone - bah! Ihome!!
Talk to me poeple! What can architects do to get the money (read technology) in our toolkit?
Architecture bridges the sciences with the arts. Students who succeed in architecture are balanced individuals who can manage the rigor of the rational and the ambiguity of the intuitive.
the more i think about architecture, the more i realize it's about balance...and in the core of it all, it's balancing art x science...and maybe passion x profession...
In general or just in the field of architecture? in either case, just about everything.
Also I'm a little confused by your statements. Whether architecture is art or science has little to do with technological deficiencies in architectural means of production. Are video artists automatically scientists because they use technology?
Architecture as a field moves very slowly in relation to the world around it. We have plenty of technology. Very few actually make effective use of it. Money and/or more technology is not going to change that, or make the field of architecture any more light on its feet.
In my opinion, regretfully, we as architects don't have a clue about science in the sense of HOW we design, we do use the scientific products of engineers (Technology) and we do use data analysis (perhaps to make the project more defendable and attentive) but deep down in the core, the process is just pure artistic expressions and statements.
P.S. this is from a totally theoretic point-of-view, business is a whole other dirty world....
i'm not sure making sure roofs don't leak is more science than art. all in all, there are architects who know a lot about science, but these are few and far between, like the people who design tensile fabric structures or professors who are heavily into solar architecture. theoretically of course, yes architecture is at an intersection between art and science. but few architects know as much about science or engineering as like to think they do. just the fact that architects are so quick to pump architecture up as part 'science' to me implies how little we collectively know about science.
this article takes a position pretty quickly on the relationship between art and science.
Let us try and first define our terms. What is art? What is science? Only after those questions are answered will it become possible to analyze how Architecture is related to those concepts.
I'll start.
Art:
Fundamentally, Art is Art because of its ability to concretize and communicate a “world view”. Is the world fundamentally ordered, understandable, bright and benevolent, full of hope, awe, and reverence, etc.? Or... is it a disorderly mess, wicked, cruel, ominous and frightful, etc.? Or... is it dull, boring, a seeming endless drudgery, etc.?
Whatever the medium, painting, music, sculpture, etc., all of them share in their ability to directly convey, in a form that is directly perceivable, a “world view”.
Consider a symphony by Mozart vs. a cacophony by a modern “punk rocker”.
Science:
Science is the systematic study of nature. Applied Science is the application of that knowledge to a particular field of endeavor; in the context of our current discussion, the built environment and all its related technologies.
I would not call Architecture a science, although it is most certainly an applied science.
Business:
Because business, all business, starts with the identification of value (whether of one's own creation or someone else's), and the subsequent marketing of that value to potential consumers... the fundamental question becomes: Is architecture of Value?
Yes, and Yes. As art, architecture serves a spiritual need, and as an applied science, architecture serves a material need. And although architecture's material value is widely understood and recognized, its spiritual value is not.
Jan 23, 08 2:43 pm ·
·
I like science for its ability to concretize and communicate a "world view".
I like art for its applied systematic study of natures.
I like architecture for its demonstration that science and art are not necessarily two different things.
Thank you, Andrew! Good, direct definitions. I am concerned over the value of architects, and by the outsourcing of building to developers to achieve cost effectiveness.
Would you agree that the individual architect positions his/herself within these three (art, science, business) criteria to develop a methodology for making architecture? And is it safe to say that this position changes for each job?
Considering today's situation, architects will have to increase the bandwidth of the technology that is deployed in our field in order to advance. I define technology as both physical materials and systems/techniques. A big movement is pre-fabrication ala mass production, in order to achieve a sort of mass customization.
Do you think that the future for architects lies in intelligence collaboration and craft based in the management of different resources in business, art and science? How would we define a master builder of our time?
Jan 23, 08 3:21 pm ·
·
A big movement is pre-fabrication ala mass production, in order to achieve a sort of mass customization. Artfully scientific business of master building indeed.
Architecture, art or science?
If we continue to allow architecture to be measured and classified as an art, then we are going to find ourselves in galleries selling our renderings while investors build our environment. Where is all of our content? I think architecture should also be the mediator between art and science, but we need to get serious and get our hands on the technology that passes over our field. Why does NASA get to have all of the fun?! Do we really need so many nuclear submarines?! Iphone - bah! Ihome!!
Talk to me poeple! What can architects do to get the money (read technology) in our toolkit?
light: wave or particle?
Architecture exists at the intersection of two elliptical orbits: one made by the bright star of Science, the other by the dark star of Philosophy.
-Dan Hoffman
Nothin' about money in there, sorry.
neither and neither...
I'm not an engineer, I'm a tree!
From the TTU COA's mission statement:
Architecture bridges the sciences with the arts. Students who succeed in architecture are balanced individuals who can manage the rigor of the rational and the ambiguity of the intuitive.
a mystery: in the same way money is a mystery
the more i think about architecture, the more i realize it's about balance...and in the core of it all, it's balancing art x science...and maybe passion x profession...
lb did you write all these down or are they from some book?
academic architecture is 75% art, 25% science
professional architecture is 10% art, 90% business
Im'e not an architect I am a designer.
Am I the only one who's tired of talking about whether architecture is an art or a science?
we. have. bigger. things. to. worry. about.
yes, you do. like lying, you liar.
'Talk to me poeple! What can architects do to get the money (read technology) in our toolkit?'
develop
their
own
projects
?
In general or just in the field of architecture? in either case, just about everything.
Also I'm a little confused by your statements. Whether architecture is art or science has little to do with technological deficiencies in architectural means of production. Are video artists automatically scientists because they use technology?
Architecture as a field moves very slowly in relation to the world around it. We have plenty of technology. Very few actually make effective use of it. Money and/or more technology is not going to change that, or make the field of architecture any more light on its feet.
Architecture is art, science, and business. Fail at one, fail at all.
its ugly
the roof leaks
no paycheck
I personally can't tolerate any of these. Believe me, I have tried them all and they suck.
Roof leaks? spark, I heard that MIT is suing Frank Gehry over the Stata Center. Leaks, mold, cracks, etc.
Architecture = Art = Science. If one fails, they all fail.
In my opinion, regretfully, we as architects don't have a clue about science in the sense of HOW we design, we do use the scientific products of engineers (Technology) and we do use data analysis (perhaps to make the project more defendable and attentive) but deep down in the core, the process is just pure artistic expressions and statements.
P.S. this is from a totally theoretic point-of-view, business is a whole other dirty world....
i'm not sure making sure roofs don't leak is more science than art. all in all, there are architects who know a lot about science, but these are few and far between, like the people who design tensile fabric structures or professors who are heavily into solar architecture. theoretically of course, yes architecture is at an intersection between art and science. but few architects know as much about science or engineering as like to think they do. just the fact that architects are so quick to pump architecture up as part 'science' to me implies how little we collectively know about science.
this article takes a position pretty quickly on the relationship between art and science.
has anyone read lthis book?
no...but i have read "harold and the purple crayon"...twice actually
Let us try and first define our terms. What is art? What is science? Only after those questions are answered will it become possible to analyze how Architecture is related to those concepts.
I'll start.
Art:
Fundamentally, Art is Art because of its ability to concretize and communicate a “world view”. Is the world fundamentally ordered, understandable, bright and benevolent, full of hope, awe, and reverence, etc.? Or... is it a disorderly mess, wicked, cruel, ominous and frightful, etc.? Or... is it dull, boring, a seeming endless drudgery, etc.?
Whatever the medium, painting, music, sculpture, etc., all of them share in their ability to directly convey, in a form that is directly perceivable, a “world view”.
Consider a symphony by Mozart vs. a cacophony by a modern “punk rocker”.
Science:
Science is the systematic study of nature. Applied Science is the application of that knowledge to a particular field of endeavor; in the context of our current discussion, the built environment and all its related technologies.
I would not call Architecture a science, although it is most certainly an applied science.
Business:
Because business, all business, starts with the identification of value (whether of one's own creation or someone else's), and the subsequent marketing of that value to potential consumers... the fundamental question becomes: Is architecture of Value?
Yes, and Yes. As art, architecture serves a spiritual need, and as an applied science, architecture serves a material need. And although architecture's material value is widely understood and recognized, its spiritual value is not.
I like science for its ability to concretize and communicate a "world view".
I like art for its applied systematic study of natures.
I like architecture for its demonstration that science and art are not necessarily two different things.
Thank you, Andrew! Good, direct definitions. I am concerned over the value of architects, and by the outsourcing of building to developers to achieve cost effectiveness.
Would you agree that the individual architect positions his/herself within these three (art, science, business) criteria to develop a methodology for making architecture? And is it safe to say that this position changes for each job?
Considering today's situation, architects will have to increase the bandwidth of the technology that is deployed in our field in order to advance. I define technology as both physical materials and systems/techniques. A big movement is pre-fabrication ala mass production, in order to achieve a sort of mass customization.
Do you think that the future for architects lies in intelligence collaboration and craft based in the management of different resources in business, art and science? How would we define a master builder of our time?
A big movement is pre-fabrication ala mass production, in order to achieve a sort of mass customization. Artfully scientific business of master building indeed.
lol! That's great.
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.