Frances to Luis and others interested...
Allow me to drop a few assumptions of mine to perhaps stimulate
some further debate and invite any advice. The ideas have been
culled from previous messages posted by listers on the subject.
(01)
In pragmatist philosophy there may be distinction made between
felt "things" as continuing attributed essences, and sensed
"objects" as existing manifested substances, and signed "signs"
as existing exemplified presences. The objects and their signs of
fine art are often further called works, but the objects and
signs of applied art if skilled are also often called crafts, and
if designed are sometimes called products. It is my assumption
therefore that in the practice of architecture any of its
projected signed objects or works as art made by the process of
design are best called architectural products, and perhaps simply
architectures.
(02)
An architectural object is usually or initially "visible" to the
sighted percipient, but is then "visual" to any sentient
percipient, and may finally be "visionary" to all percipients in
that a visual vision in mind is evoked. The point here is that
while only sighted persons can see "visible" objects with their
eyes, any person of sense to include congenitally blinded persons
from birth can imagine "visual" objects culled from any sense
modality, and then may also have a "vision" as a preparatory
notion. This would mean that the communication of "visionary" and
"visual" information is not limited to only "visible" objects, as
is too often wrongly assumed by professional experts.
(03)
An architectural artistic product may then eventually be
perceived as a "practical" utility to use in some way consistent
with the need or purpose it was intended to satisfy. In any
event, while the "form" and "fact" of such architectural art is
necessary, it is not sufficient, because seemingly the "force"
and "function" of the art is also necessary. This requirement
likely places architectural art in a higher aesthetic class at a
loftier artistic level than say pictural art and sculptural art.
(04)
An architectural object can be either an object that is
accidentally "found" in nature or culture, such as a cave or nest
or trash or ruin; or an object that is deliberately "made" in
culture to be a constructed product, such as an artifact or plan
or model or edifice.
(05)
The actual architectural "products" of culture made by human
designers could presumably include pylons and dams and reservoirs
and bridges and docks, as well as tombs and monuments and
stadiums and lighthouses and radio towers and radar sites and
airfields and zoos and office towers and living quarters, but not
all these products might be held as art, which seems to be an
irony of sorts.
(06)
The "finder" or "maker" of a nonart architectural object must be
a living biotic organism, since it cannot be a dead inorganic
mechanism like a machine with an engine, but it is not fully
clear if the organism need necessarily be a human organism.
(07)
The purposive "need" for any architectural object to exist and
function as such is that it must be practical and instrumental
and utilitarian. This is to say that it must in some way be
effectively useable and workable, but it need not be occupied by
an organism acting as a habitant nor need it be used as a livable
habitat.
(08)
To function as any kind of architecture the object must be
feasible and viable, and satisfy sufficient and efficient and
necessary conditions, and remain adequate and appropriate to the
purpose intended.
(09)
The terms of "occupation" as a satisfactory purpose that might
emerge from the core root of habit or habituation could include
habitat and habitant and habitation.
(10)
The architectural object must and will have aesthetic properties
felt to be embedded in its form, as all existent phenomenal
objects of sense do, but it need not necessarily be an artistic
artifact of craft and design or a lofty work of fine art. Just
exactly what it is that makes such an object art would seem to
remain questionable among learned experts.
(11)
The process of "design" according to realist pragmatism is vastly
cosmic or telic and exists in all aspects of the universe. All
objects in nature evolve to satisfy a purposive need by a
disposed and determined process of teleonomic being. Objects are
assigned to goals due to an inclined bent that they lean toward,
because they can act in no other way. The exploratory path or
route taken may vary or even be bad and wrong, but the overall
direction and end goal is good, because the errors of trail and
trial are corrected by the embedded innate trait. The point here
is that humans have a "playful" tendency toward architecture and
art.
(12)
The architectural "process" leading to an architectural product
seems to consist of first orientation or decisive planning, and
then fabrication or determined building, and last utilization or
deliberated using. The planned schemas and preliminary models
however are not held to be the product. The process and product
may furthermore be individual or communally collaborative.
(13)
As a basic "sign" the object of architecture would bear a
fundamental represented form, and yield a referential referred
content, and endure an instrumental interpreted effect. Such an
object would limit its sign to be mainly an indexic indicator of
user or usage, although the indexic sign would be composed of
icons and could further be used as a symbol. The main indexic
limitation is imposed by the causal ground that the object as a
content or referent, and the sign as form or vehicle, lay in
together in that the object causes the sign. The form then goes
on to determine or limit the instrumental effect.
(14)
As a basic "art" under pragmatism the work of architecture would
be mainly an applied craft of skilled design. It could however be
further deemed a lofty work of fine art if the product has the
power in its form to reflect worthy aesthetic values and to evoke
intense aesthetic responses that are worthwhile both individually
and communally. The referred values could be mainly natural or
cultural. The experiential or behavioral responses could be
mainly emotional or practical or intellectual. If the empowered
and enforced form is immediately original and the response is
immediately emotional, then the product would likely be a good
candidate as a visual work of fine tectonic art.
(15)
It would seem that architecture in general as an object or
product and as a sign or art is common to all organisms in the
whole world, and is thus global or is at least multicultural and
international.
(16)
The architectural product in its functional use and as a causal
sign is much like similar products that have been made by humans
and also much like ordinary shelters found or made by nonhuman
organisms, yet the product clearly does something that other
objects fail to do or do as well. That something is the power to
reflect worthy values and to evoke intense experiences, both of
which surface as discursive thought that is then mentioned or
notated. The product is thus like a conditional proposition into
which the user scans and probes and reads any iconic or symbolic
meaning that may be represented and referred and interpreted by
the product, all most as if it were a narrative discourse or a
literary fiction.
(17)
It would seem that the art and act of architecture is indeed
anthropomorphic and anthropocentric. The architectonic evolution
of finding or making shelters to hide in or live in on the part
of organisms would seem to suggest a biotic and zootic and
ethotic origin for what is now called architecture. The historic
link from nonhuman organisms to humanisms is thus anthropic and
ethnic and epistemic.
(18)
The architectural object, such as a habitat to be occupied, can
be "commandeered" or "constructed" which is to say found or made.
The architectural product which is deemed art must however only
be "constructed" or made.
