Frances, I would imagine that most 'practitioners' of art and architecture primarily 'just do it' and are not hampered by a static conception of what they do. Each person brings a unique set of faculties to the task and each task is also unique leading towards non serial repetition. Think of it as a 'cognitive DNA recombination'.
I am not trying to dissuade you from your inquiry, but this is an important issue that must be incorporated in your theory. Any static theory is doomed from the onset. Luis Fontanills Architect Miami/Dade Counties, Florida In a message dated 5/14/2009 5:46:59 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [email protected] writes: Frances momentarily digresses... The classification of those global objects called the arts and techs and sciences by some kind of categories is seemingly an ongoing and unending work in progress for thinkers. There remains little consensus of opinion on a lot of stuff that has been posited. The same can be said of aesthetics and of architecture, and from positions that hold them as either art or tech or science. It is unclear to me however whether this says something mainly about the problems of classes or categories or objects or thinkers or theories. Considering all the learned persons that exist in scholarly academia, it should be expected that some reasonable agreement would emerge, even if only tentative. To me this current state of affairs in regard to a lack of rational intelligent ability is confusing, to say the least. If philosophers, let alone artists and technicians and scientists, cannot deal adequately with psychical things like art and theory, **************We found the real bHotel Californiab and the bSeinfeldb diner. What will you find? Explore WhereItsAt.com. (http://www.whereitsat.com/?ncid=emlwenew00000004)
