People used to distinguish between a building and a work of architecture. A building was simply a functional shelter but architecture was that and something more, something unnecessary but highly symbolic, like Chartres Cathedral or the Parthenon or the Manor of a ruling Duke.
Nowadays the distinction is blurred and more inclusive. Yet it's a blurring that's been a long time coming. Even formal gardens, as extensions of architectural structures, are architecture. The Mall in D.C. is as much a work of architecture as the old Roman Forum and the grand squares of European cities, laid out in medieval times, are architectural. Vitruvius, in his Books on Architecture, arguably the beginning of architecture as a subject, gave much attention to placement, the landscape, the direction of winds, the array of streets, and so on as part of architecture. If architecture is meant to be seen as well as used, then the field of view, whatever it is, is really a part of the structure. One reason Chicago is a great city of architecture is that many of its important buildings, (stretching back to only the 19C) were designed to impress, to be seen against the sky and water, from down the street, from out in the lake. All great cities have aimed for the same effect. wc ________________________________ From: Chris Miller <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Thursday, May 7, 2009 7:36:52 AM Subject: Architecture and Philosophy Would it be a discovery if Francis proved that it is not possible to frame a philosophic theory of architecture? ____________________________________________________________ Find top-rated Plumbers in your area. http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/fc/BLSrjnxcruNhGyaEeNSSXJKqDMxP8y UFEMLjwDvt0cvoqre60jaB1Uw7mUo/
