Re Gravity: William has a point - and if gravity does become an issue, then an architect needs to be consulted. (which is why monuments in the USSR were credited to both the sculptor and the architect) Except that -- isn't gravity also an issue for a choreographer?
Re "architecture, like other art, cannot made on demand": William's point needs further reflection. As a painting fails to receive recognition as art, it eventually will disappear into a closet. But a building can stand on an important site and serve important physical and symbolic functions whether it is recognized or its architecture or not. And indeed, at least in Chicago, such recognition is often irrelevant to its preservation. Re "Kindergarten Chats" -- I guess no one else here has read it -- or if they have - does not consider it relevant to Frances' quest for a global definition. But as I recall, it did attempt to develop an architectural aesthetic that was transgenerational as well as transcultural, and this should count as a philosophy of architecture. Re: Michael's paintings - it's an incredible stretch to get them into this discussion, but do I agree with William that either his compositions need to be "freed from servitude to the figure", or his figure painting needs to be freed from servitude to modernist ideology and recent artworld fashions. ____________________________________________________________ Don't stay in a roach motel. Click here to find great deals on hotels. http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/fc/BLSrjnxVnqDgogeGarRwRkcAYUAeq9 Te8gWKVes1nVspvOxbmcLEIYyaMve/
