Frances to interested members...
In this discussion about considering whether a theory of
architecture is possible or feasible, there seems to be many key
points that have met with some agreement. Aside from its
rhetorical and analogical or metaphorical uses, the basic fact
accepted by most experts is that architecture is an act of only
humans, and that its origin starts with humans who need to be
protected in nature from the risks of living in the exposed
environment. This for me entails that humans live either not
sheltered or sheltered, and that if sheltered the shelter will be
held as either not architecture or as architecture, and if
architecture it will be deemed as either not art or as art, and
if art then as either fine art or applied art, and if as applied
art then as craft or design. This scheme means that there can be
architecture that will not be art, which seems reasonable yet
also debatable. What does remain to debate is the notion of
whether architecture can be bad or must always be good; and if it
must be aesthetic, and if so only beautiful; and if it must be
ethical, as a means to some end goal other than for its own form
or sake solely alone. The further issues of contention might
include whether architecture as a class is an objective construct
independent of mind, what exactly the typical object of
architecture is, and how broad the range of included token
objects should indeed be.
