Frances writes: "The thorny issue of whether architecture is intrinsically artistic and necessarily always involves itself as an aesthetic art, or rather alternatively that some of architecture can be an object other than an art work, is for me an important point in this probe...".
Architect is a trained artist. To me architecture is intrinsically artistic with aesthetic elements and different degree of artistry, depending on a creative component. Architectural project is always more than just utilitarian structure. Boris Shoshensky ---------- Original Message ---------- From: "Frances Kelly" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Architecture and Philosophy Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 22:12:34 -0400 Frances to William... (1) If engineered constructs like towers and pylons and piers and bridges and monuments are to be admitted as architecture, which tentatively does seem to be tenable, considering what does pass as architecture by some experts, then other related constructs like mineral mines and traffic tunnels and habitable caves might also qualify. The semiotic criteria here to support such a relation would perhaps be the formal iconic similarity and resemblance of objects, so that if a construct seems architectural or seems to be like architecture, then it must be architecture. (2) The thorny issue of whether architecture is intrinsically artistic and necessarily always involves itself as an aesthetic art, or rather alternatively that some of architecture can be an object other than an art work, is for me an important point in this probe. In the case of say some graphic pictures for example even great depictions can be mainly other than artistic. It is however not fully clear to me if the architectonic and the artistic as inherent criteria can be separated. (3) The place of tectonic objects in the aesthetic and artistic evolution of humanity certainly needs closer scrutiny, and may shed further insight into setting down a sound theory of architecture. The primal use of art, to say adorn an edifice by ornament or decor, implies that art in some form or another existed before its use, but it may be that cognitive ability and even intelligence must come before the making and taking of art. It is difficult for me to imagine the dumb brute brain of a primal subhuman animal being able to acquire anything artistic, or even symbolic and linguistic. There might however be something of import here in the fact that playing and grooming and gaming by primitive humans may be the start of what is now called art. The idea that architecture may be the main kind of art, because many other kinds of art must be housed within its envelope, is also very intriguing. You wrote... One of Chicago's great buildings, the Auditorium Theater and tower, designed by Louis Sullivan, rests on rafts. These are broad wood and concrete pods about 40 ft. down into the clay that spread the downward thrust of the building. Bedrock is about 80 feet down at that location. Among other innovations, Sullivan provided for telescoping plumbing pipes to accommodate the settling of the building. It remains a spectacular full use building, no cracks or tilting...since 1893. I think you [Armando] draw the definition too tight for architecture. But I agree it's hard to define, since it involves art. And one of the first uses of art was to adorn and be integrated with architecture. Maybe architecture is the main art form since all the other arts take place in its context. ____________________________________________________________ Click for a wide selection of quality scales. http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2241/fc/BLSrjpYSwFIws4luvruuwCnaaNwPEN FrYTtUrj6U0a4tmNoGA6RuaW0pwCM/
