Frances to Boris again belatedly...
You roughly stated earlier that any architectural structure, like
a building for example, is a necessary tern of art and design and
engineering, yet when a structure has only design and engineering
to the exclusion of art then the structure will be other than
art, but when an artistic component is added to this pair then
the structure becomes architecture; so that if a structure does
not have an art component then it cannot be architecture. On the
surface this approach requiring an artistic aspect for a
structure to be architecture seems familiar, but it may not be
agreed to by all experts in the field; and it may not stand up
well when compared with other visual objects like pictures and
sculptures for example, or even verbal literatures for that
matter. Visual objects like pictures and sculptures and
architectures will bear or have aesthetic qualities as part of
their formal properties, which is likely so with all things in
the world, yet pictures for example can remain as pictures
without necessarily being art or at least not fine art. Pictures
and perhaps sculptures also and even architectures can thus
likely be art or nonart and still be pictures and sculptures and
architectures. Those graphic pictorial depictions for example
that do not have an artistic aspect, because they may be a means
to some other goals, can still be pictures outside of art. The
same may be so for all visual and aural and verbal objects.
