and then you both sat back and sipped your coffee. Short discussion huh. Actual definition(s)
1.The art and science of designing and erecting buildings.
2.Buildings and other large structures
3.A style and method of design and construction
Architecture can be an artform and Design is a part of it all. But in no way is one part of the other.
art is part of architecture... architecture is not part of art... there's a fine line between being artistic and being creative... artistic architects don't go far as far as i'm concerned...
I have a double degree in art and architecture. Maybe that's why I thought it was interesting.
Its true art is art and architecture is architecture. BUT is that really the end of the story?
Architecture follows art.
fakeid.....either you're a complete idiot or you're taking the piss. I highly recomend you look, read and learn. Louis Kahn funded his Jewish family's move to Philadelphia by selling his art work; Carlo Scarpa was a painter by choice; in fact, look a damn Michealangelo and look me in the eye and tell me "artistic architects don't go far". If you ask me there's far to many architects out there who can't even hold a pencil. All three of the afore mentioned architects (and there are many more like them should you care to look) produced the most stunning drawings, paintings and artistic explorations of their proposals, and all three have produced timeless designs that contain far more weight than any building conceived by computers and crappy little sketches. Oh, and as an afterthought, everyone should go see a film called "My Architect" about Louis Kahn by his son. You Americans have probably already heard of it, but I live in England! But GO SEE, it answers a part of this question. Oh, and fakeid please respond, no hard feelings, just have strong views on this one, but would like to hear your views, or anyone elses for that matter.....it's an interesting timeless debate.
scarpa... first of all...with regard to 'I highly recomend you look, read and learn.'... am i not learning by luring you into responding to my post? as for look and read... it's being done as we post... i'm also looking for short cuts like this to gain knowledge without reading... 2nd of all... comparing someone to an idiot and taking piss while saying no hard feelings seems to me like me punching you in the face and say 'sorry, i did it intentionally'... however... fortunately, or unfortunately... i don't take that seriously so really... no hard feelings... last but not least... i agree with all the instances you've brought up... but architects aren't like what they used to be anymore... i stand by my previous statement... being creative is not equivalent to being artistic... how many buildings out there can be described as artistic rather than creative? blending art into architecture is as difficult to take place as an inert element in a chemical reaction... art is a subjective matter... creativity appeals to the public... unfortunately, popularity usually associates with the crowd... i wonder how picasso is doing right now... indeed... this's an interesting timeless debate...
Hi
If architecture continue out this dead end road ,no one can participate a contest unless he know what linetype is supposed to be used for a particular building element described by number codes those made for paper drawings before the computer was used. Beside as how EU. rules now expect a suggested building, it must be organised as 2D plan drawings where codes must point exact to the way building compoments as described in code books, --- now please don't ask arts here as if your visionary project is not calculated for arear from old fasion paper drawings the jury will just as before send back your project becaurse you did not use the right piece of paper in the right color, to calculate the arears as how you are supposed to design the building ----- now they can refuse the project becaurse you did not use the right linetype, on the specified layer just as before computers was used there are a way to reject a visionary project becaurse of byrocracy rules.
Forget about the fancy new Direct Link Production methods, they do not fit within the code guidelines and forget about visionary artswork, as how architecture work it is all about rules ,code regulations and as before ,bad exchouses to avoid the real challancing projects.
Been there tryed that.
to me this question which is better, red or blue. Everyone is going to have their own opinion, some believe art and architecture are different things, others believe they are similar, and others believe the same...none are correct. I believe that they are similar, you can see work from artist in which they plan out their work similar to how we plan out a building (an example would be robert smithson)...however we never have the freedom to work sporadically nor do we (in most cases) actually work on the finished product (unlike a painter, sculpture, etc.)
Hi
Richard ;
"correll...you sound like one sad puppy! go out, do some hard drugs and remember what it was like to be a student!"
Now that will not change how the real world work ;))
Anyway art you don't doubt, you reconise it instantly acturly that is what most often describe art, that you know right away that "this is art". ------ now that don't ever so often reflect architecture.
Beside art is geniune somthing special guess you Romans call it outstanding ,how can it be difficult to se if somthing is outstanding, genuine and instantly reconised as somthing special.
Now how about architectural software, do that focus on shaping the spaces or writing out bills and accounts ?
P.C. http://home20.inet.tele.dk/h-3d/
well, i actually think that great art, like great architecture, is not always recognied straight away...some people will like a painting, some people will like a biuilding, some will like a car, some will not...architecture is part of the artistic realm, you enjoy it or you dont. remember that art has the main intent of giving pleasure, is part of those things that humans do once liberated by the contingencies of survival. men that lived in caves started drawing only after they got organized and could hunt more effectively...
so you create something, you give it your concept of beauty, and some people wll agree and some people wont. when you say art is instantly recognizable...how many artists were misunderstood in their lifetime only to be discovered later? artistic culture is only more widespread than architectural culture, lay people tend to know a bit more about picasso and monet than they do about mies and khan, that's probably the main differen ce.
Hi
Real artists I most often se as explorers.
I think you need a way to determine if this piece is a step or the expression I also find that to much art is realy about social things, to much art is pieces of a dialog to often one that occupy the artist more than how you respond to the attitude .
In today's architecture there simply is to much attitude and to little detail to much remains of cold postmodern attitude and often what these works represent, is the artists lack of feel often they point to architecture as attitude without a will for beauty ----- did I mention that this, beauty, is among the things I look for ,realy I think it is not realy art without beauty or maby we expanded art to much, maby it is wrong to speak about somthing as being art, if it don't carry beauty, quality and a messeage understood by others than the artist.
Per Corell http://home20.inet.tele.dk/h-3d/kassehus14.jpg
both architecture and art communicate, but they speak different languages. architecture is to art what the cinema is to movies, the picture house sustains the act of watching movies by negotiating the difference between the street and the confines of the screen.
we could use a lot more figurative stuff out in the open to combat urban alienation; anthony gormley + new york = less suicides per day? that said i don't think we should leave it to architects, have you guys seen FLW's sprites?
my point from earlier is that any endeavor is its own endeavor. it operates within its own history, structure, context, etc.
architecture cannot be art or it ceases to be architecture... and conversely is true. when smithson and heizer and all those artists started doing work outside of galleries they were pushing their own boundaries but staying within the confines of art. someone like acconci who starts doing 'sculptures' that are used as buildings has crossed over; its no longer art but rather architecture if he has to deal with permits, inspections, licensing, occupancies, etc.
if gehry's building are sculptural it doesn't make them sculpture; or if zumthor's buildings are poetic it doesn't make them poetry.
scarpa, i highly recommend you don't call people a 'tit'. have some dignity!
I contend that architecture is a craft, from reading Loos among other things.
The recent post of the Seven Fallacies of Architecture has a good paragraph on the architect and students desire for architecture to be a solitary artistic pursuit. I agree with him that this view/desire is damaging to the profession.
art is a moth, architecture is the flame
art is a sound, architecture is the echo
art is a monolith in the sand, architecture is its path to wisdom
art is a pool of water, architecture is the floating leaf within
honestly, stop trying to define art and architecture. it won't get anyone anywhere. language is way too unspecific and fallible to derive any real sense out of it. the argument will end up truning into an infinite chain of definitions of definitions of definitions. just do whatever, anything is art. i think duchamp made a good point with "the fountain".
p.s.-anyone who thinks they understand the first four comparisons is pretty much an idiot, and should stop smoking so much pot.
I was chatting with an artist/architect friend the other day about architecture and art and I said "An architect should be on one level a conceptual artist... If you remove art from architecture, what value does an architect have? I mean, nobody really NEEDS an architect."
He responded: "Well I see things in a different way. Art is by its nature useless."
Art part architecture, but gift represented overlooked. On surface, art seem small-trivial relative time-space. Architect fall temptation, fill vastness make power over what can. Denial not becoming of art . . . Painted pot seem small. Will of creator older than mountains. Complexity greater than dead physics governing all things.
And that - just one little old painted pot! Geeez. Pretty cool to ponder . . .
I agree with bRink about the difference between art and architecture being tied to usefulness.
Didn't Richard Serra say something to that effect when commenting that Ghery's buildings are definitely not art (despite their friendship)?
There is a bit of art in all human endeavors- some great amounts, some not so great. However I think there is definitely a seam dividing architecture from art (while tying them together).
Adolf Loos said: "Only a very small part of architecture belongs to art: the tomb and the monument. Everything else, everything which serves a purpose should be excluded from the realms of art."
It seems that what we are talking about is not just architecture but the realm of human-made things... It relates to a broader discourse (often embedded with all kinds of moralism) on instrumentality versus monumentality.
My personal feeling is that the question of whether architecture is art is related to the activity that produced it... Hanna Arrendt distinguishes between two categories of activity: labour activity which is concerned with the production of instrumental things (whose value stems from utility), and work activity which is concerned with the production of "useless" things such as works of art (whose value stems from the things themselves).
Are you interest in the opinion of an artist? Newly I called a friend and colleague to tell him that I got a project together with an architect. He felt sorry for me. It's true!
Here some original voices from architekts: 'I have a very good idea too for my building, would you bring it forward in place of mine in the next meeting?' 'Mrs Polter you need to provide me with detailed dimensioning? I do not understand it!' 'We use to make concessions of up to 200.000€' 'We need garanties of 100% lightfastness for the next 20years.'(car varnish 3years)...
Do a serious soul searching. Didn't you want to study art but your parents or you self find that unserios? Aren't you irritated if there is an artist who probably did not study like you and the client oders him to paints in your picture. For me: An achchitekt wants to be an artist but because he wasted his time with studing rules and regulations and maybe because he is to shy for an artistic live, he isn't. So an architect is and will be an architect
Art or Architecture
I had an intriguing discussion with a friend:
She says art is part of architecture.
I say architecture is part of art.
.....What do you think?
and then you both sat back and sipped your coffee. Short discussion huh. Actual definition(s)
1.The art and science of designing and erecting buildings.
2.Buildings and other large structures
3.A style and method of design and construction
Architecture can be an artform and Design is a part of it all. But in no way is one part of the other.
architecture is the mother of all arts
there is no right answer, its all relative
I thought relatives were relative?
Art is made by luvies, Architecture is made by luvies who like dressing up in luminous vests and hard hats.
art is part of architecture... architecture is not part of art... there's a fine line between being artistic and being creative... artistic architects don't go far as far as i'm concerned...
art is art.
architecture is architecture.
end of story.
wait a minute,
poetry is poetry.
literature is literature.
cinema is cinema.
basketweaving is basketweaving.......
I have a double degree in art and architecture. Maybe that's why I thought it was interesting.
Its true art is art and architecture is architecture. BUT is that really the end of the story?
Architecture follows art.
fakeid.....either you're a complete idiot or you're taking the piss. I highly recomend you look, read and learn. Louis Kahn funded his Jewish family's move to Philadelphia by selling his art work; Carlo Scarpa was a painter by choice; in fact, look a damn Michealangelo and look me in the eye and tell me "artistic architects don't go far". If you ask me there's far to many architects out there who can't even hold a pencil. All three of the afore mentioned architects (and there are many more like them should you care to look) produced the most stunning drawings, paintings and artistic explorations of their proposals, and all three have produced timeless designs that contain far more weight than any building conceived by computers and crappy little sketches. Oh, and as an afterthought, everyone should go see a film called "My Architect" about Louis Kahn by his son. You Americans have probably already heard of it, but I live in England! But GO SEE, it answers a part of this question. Oh, and fakeid please respond, no hard feelings, just have strong views on this one, but would like to hear your views, or anyone elses for that matter.....it's an interesting timeless debate.
Oh, and silverlake shouldn't be such a tit
Erect large relatives, luvies. Basketweaving piss tit.
What?
scarpa... first of all...with regard to 'I highly recomend you look, read and learn.'... am i not learning by luring you into responding to my post? as for look and read... it's being done as we post... i'm also looking for short cuts like this to gain knowledge without reading... 2nd of all... comparing someone to an idiot and taking piss while saying no hard feelings seems to me like me punching you in the face and say 'sorry, i did it intentionally'... however... fortunately, or unfortunately... i don't take that seriously so really... no hard feelings... last but not least... i agree with all the instances you've brought up... but architects aren't like what they used to be anymore... i stand by my previous statement... being creative is not equivalent to being artistic... how many buildings out there can be described as artistic rather than creative? blending art into architecture is as difficult to take place as an inert element in a chemical reaction... art is a subjective matter... creativity appeals to the public... unfortunately, popularity usually associates with the crowd... i wonder how picasso is doing right now... indeed... this's an interesting timeless debate...
the last harvard design magazine was almost entirely devoted to 'art and architecture' with some very well written arguments, its worth a read
Hi
If architecture continue out this dead end road ,no one can participate a contest unless he know what linetype is supposed to be used for a particular building element described by number codes those made for paper drawings before the computer was used. Beside as how EU. rules now expect a suggested building, it must be organised as 2D plan drawings where codes must point exact to the way building compoments as described in code books, --- now please don't ask arts here as if your visionary project is not calculated for arear from old fasion paper drawings the jury will just as before send back your project becaurse you did not use the right piece of paper in the right color, to calculate the arears as how you are supposed to design the building ----- now they can refuse the project becaurse you did not use the right linetype, on the specified layer just as before computers was used there are a way to reject a visionary project becaurse of byrocracy rules.
Forget about the fancy new Direct Link Production methods, they do not fit within the code guidelines and forget about visionary artswork, as how architecture work it is all about rules ,code regulations and as before ,bad exchouses to avoid the real challancing projects.
Been there tryed that.
art is art and everything else is everything else
-Ad Reinhardt
correll...you sound like one sad puppy! go out, do some hard drugs and remember what it was like to be a student!
architecture can be art. art is not confined to things in galleries... :p
to me this question which is better, red or blue. Everyone is going to have their own opinion, some believe art and architecture are different things, others believe they are similar, and others believe the same...none are correct. I believe that they are similar, you can see work from artist in which they plan out their work similar to how we plan out a building (an example would be robert smithson)...however we never have the freedom to work sporadically nor do we (in most cases) actually work on the finished product (unlike a painter, sculpture, etc.)
i meant to say "to me this question is like: Which is better, red or blue?"
Hi
Richard ;
"correll...you sound like one sad puppy! go out, do some hard drugs and remember what it was like to be a student!"
Now that will not change how the real world work ;))
Anyway art you don't doubt, you reconise it instantly acturly that is what most often describe art, that you know right away that "this is art". ------ now that don't ever so often reflect architecture.
Beside art is geniune somthing special guess you Romans call it outstanding ,how can it be difficult to se if somthing is outstanding, genuine and instantly reconised as somthing special.
Now how about architectural software, do that focus on shaping the spaces or writing out bills and accounts ?
P.C.
http://home20.inet.tele.dk/h-3d/
well, i actually think that great art, like great architecture, is not always recognied straight away...some people will like a painting, some people will like a biuilding, some will like a car, some will not...architecture is part of the artistic realm, you enjoy it or you dont. remember that art has the main intent of giving pleasure, is part of those things that humans do once liberated by the contingencies of survival. men that lived in caves started drawing only after they got organized and could hunt more effectively...
so you create something, you give it your concept of beauty, and some people wll agree and some people wont. when you say art is instantly recognizable...how many artists were misunderstood in their lifetime only to be discovered later? artistic culture is only more widespread than architectural culture, lay people tend to know a bit more about picasso and monet than they do about mies and khan, that's probably the main differen ce.
i stnd by my hrd drugs suggestion.
Hi
Real artists I most often se as explorers.
I think you need a way to determine if this piece is a step or the expression I also find that to much art is realy about social things, to much art is pieces of a dialog to often one that occupy the artist more than how you respond to the attitude .
In today's architecture there simply is to much attitude and to little detail to much remains of cold postmodern attitude and often what these works represent, is the artists lack of feel often they point to architecture as attitude without a will for beauty ----- did I mention that this, beauty, is among the things I look for ,realy I think it is not realy art without beauty or maby we expanded art to much, maby it is wrong to speak about somthing as being art, if it don't carry beauty, quality and a messeage understood by others than the artist.
Per Corell
http://home20.inet.tele.dk/h-3d/kassehus14.jpg
well a friend uses the term "ARTitechts"...but i really dont know what he means at all...
both architecture and art communicate, but they speak different languages. architecture is to art what the cinema is to movies, the picture house sustains the act of watching movies by negotiating the difference between the street and the confines of the screen.
we could use a lot more figurative stuff out in the open to combat urban alienation; anthony gormley + new york = less suicides per day? that said i don't think we should leave it to architects, have you guys seen FLW's sprites?
kinda like native american gothic.
my point from earlier is that any endeavor is its own endeavor. it operates within its own history, structure, context, etc.
architecture cannot be art or it ceases to be architecture... and conversely is true. when smithson and heizer and all those artists started doing work outside of galleries they were pushing their own boundaries but staying within the confines of art. someone like acconci who starts doing 'sculptures' that are used as buildings has crossed over; its no longer art but rather architecture if he has to deal with permits, inspections, licensing, occupancies, etc.
if gehry's building are sculptural it doesn't make them sculpture; or if zumthor's buildings are poetic it doesn't make them poetry.
scarpa, i highly recommend you don't call people a 'tit'. have some dignity!
would someone care to define ART first? i think the lines are way too thin there.... only then could we make an objective comaparison...
/\
l
l
ha, just try. that is no longer possible.
I contend that architecture is a craft, from reading Loos among other things.
The recent post of the Seven Fallacies of Architecture has a good paragraph on the architect and students desire for architecture to be a solitary artistic pursuit. I agree with him that this view/desire is damaging to the profession.
btw Silverlake - right on.
art is a moth, architecture is the flame
art is a sound, architecture is the echo
art is a monolith in the sand, architecture is its path to wisdom
art is a pool of water, architecture is the floating leaf within
honestly, stop trying to define art and architecture. it won't get anyone anywhere. language is way too unspecific and fallible to derive any real sense out of it. the argument will end up truning into an infinite chain of definitions of definitions of definitions. just do whatever, anything is art. i think duchamp made a good point with "the fountain".
p.s.-anyone who thinks they understand the first four comparisons is pretty much an idiot, and should stop smoking so much pot.
the beauty of it is- theyre synonymous...
and yes- the perception of what is "art" is subjective. relative.
but in certain projects, the definition of each shouldnt be separated- or in certain instances- cannot be separated....
http://arq-infad.arqa.com/fad2004/fotos/8.jpg
so silverlake when vito acconci creates architecture what is it?
I was chatting with an artist/architect friend the other day about architecture and art and I said "An architect should be on one level a conceptual artist... If you remove art from architecture, what value does an architect have? I mean, nobody really NEEDS an architect."
He responded: "Well I see things in a different way. Art is by its nature useless."
those cardboard cutout cops in the 7-11s are mildly astonishing :-)
but they don't look to be weather resisitant.
architecture is architecture.
or in a dadist mood:
architecture is. to get on the other side.
back in london! uaiiiii!
betadinesutures, when vito acconci creates architecture it is a great artist doing bad architecture.
truly true.. have you seen him lecture on it? yark.
Art part architecture, but gift represented overlooked. On surface, art seem small-trivial relative time-space. Architect fall temptation, fill vastness make power over what can. Denial not becoming of art . . . Painted pot seem small. Will of creator older than mountains. Complexity greater than dead physics governing all things.
And that - just one little old painted pot! Geeez. Pretty cool to ponder . . .
I agree with bRink about the difference between art and architecture being tied to usefulness.
Didn't Richard Serra say something to that effect when commenting that Ghery's buildings are definitely not art (despite their friendship)?
There is a bit of art in all human endeavors- some great amounts, some not so great. However I think there is definitely a seam dividing architecture from art (while tying them together).
hejduk's work is art.
Let's hear what our friend A. Loos has to say on the subject:
http://www.anneke.net/Loos/Paper.html
Adolf Loos said: "Only a very small part of architecture belongs to art: the tomb and the monument. Everything else, everything which serves a purpose should be excluded from the realms of art."
It seems that what we are talking about is not just architecture but the realm of human-made things... It relates to a broader discourse (often embedded with all kinds of moralism) on instrumentality versus monumentality.
My personal feeling is that the question of whether architecture is art is related to the activity that produced it... Hanna Arrendt distinguishes between two categories of activity: labour activity which is concerned with the production of instrumental things (whose value stems from utility), and work activity which is concerned with the production of "useless" things such as works of art (whose value stems from the things themselves).
Do you think of design as labour? Or as work?
no, but those voices in my head - wait, I'll tell you more about them some other time...
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=gaudi+religious+secluded+&spell=1
all bow down...
Are you interest in the opinion of an artist? Newly I called a friend and colleague to tell him that I got a project together with an architect. He felt sorry for me. It's true!
Here some original voices from architekts: 'I have a very good idea too for my building, would you bring it forward in place of mine in the next meeting?' 'Mrs Polter you need to provide me with detailed dimensioning? I do not understand it!' 'We use to make concessions of up to 200.000€' 'We need garanties of 100% lightfastness for the next 20years.'(car varnish 3years)...
Do a serious soul searching. Didn't you want to study art but your parents or you self find that unserios? Aren't you irritated if there is an artist who probably did not study like you and the client oders him to paints in your picture. For me: An achchitekt wants to be an artist but because he wasted his time with studing rules and regulations and maybe because he is to shy for an artistic live, he isn't. So an architect is and will be an architect
It seems to me that the most disaffected/unhappy architects - who would rather be artists - end up teaching in schools of architecture.
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.