Frances to Chris on a nice note... There are clearly problems with an architectural theory that fails to differentiate built constructs that are deemed not architecture from those that are deemed architecture, and that further fails to differentiate architecture that is deemed not art from architecture that is deemed art. For a construct to be deemed architecture by virtue of its ability to mainly satisfy a utile function may be justified, aside from the appearance of its external form, but this functional criterion alone would not justify deeming the architecture as art.
As an example, for a construct to look like a monetary bank, at least say to most ordinary persons in everyday common life, the lines of such a building would usually be deemed dark and rough and thick and made of stone or brick and loom as a big tall edifice. The problem is that with modern building materials and construction techniques a bank can be made of what seems to be very flimsy stuff, yet be safer than the older traditional edifices. Such newer banks thus no longer really glorify the primary utility of a financial institute. But then the true and real needs of its transactional users in being depositors can now be satisfied remotely and automatically over the internet. It would seem that for the design of a bank any architectural criteria of its function being dominant over its form and its function being correspondent to its utility is thereby obsolete and obscure and even thwarted. The architectural value and worth of a bank in any form likely lays in its ability to secure deposits and assure depositors. Any building as a bank therefore may be agreeably deemed good as architecture, aside from its being potentially good as art, if its function and utility has the force and power to instill this banking ability in its users; and not only if its form and beauty has the force and the power to merely signify the building as architecture. Any architectural product held by experts to additionally be art on the other hand is one that has the power in its form to reflect worthy values of a natural and cultural kind, and to evoke intense responses of an emotional or practical or intellectual kind that are furthermore worthwhile both individually and communally. The empowered and enforced form here could likely also include its formal function, which is its ability to satisfy the utility of securing deposits and assuring depositors, but the function is irrelevant to the form yielding the architecture as potentially being art. This probably means that for any eligible construct to be deemed an architectural edifice its form must have the force and power to reflect worthy practical values and to evoke intense functional responses. This probably then means that for any eligible construct deemed an architectural edifice to further be deemed as a lofty work of fine art or a crafty work of applied art its form must have the force and power to reflect worthy aesthetic values and to evoke intense aesthetic responses. The ability of architecture to function well as a utility would thus be irrelevant to its being art. There is also a pragmatist approach to the design of such architectonic things that further deals with communal collectivity and corporate responsibility, which may correct many flaws in my guess and in the Sullivan scheme, but the details escape me at the moment. It appears that Sullivan took some pains to get his architectural theory right, but it may have been a specific product merely for his time alone. Chris wrote... "The true function of the architect is to initiate such buildings as shall correspond to the real needs of the people" -- "the true work of the architect is to organize, integrate, and glorify utility" (Louis Sullivan, "Kindergarten Chats" - Chapter 42, "What is an Architect"). So, the design of a bank, for example, ought to "organize, integrate, and glorify" that specific use. But what is the use of a bank? In addition to housing a safe, doesn't a bank also have to attract customers? Doesn't it have to inspire confidence regarding the future behavior of the banker (even if this is something of a joke, then and now and forever)? And what if people feel more confident in a bank that resembles a Roman temple? (Actually the Roman public building or basilica could serve as a public office building, as well as a temple.) My local bank (now called "Fifth Third" but it has changed ownership 4 times over the past 20 years) is basically a Roman basilica and its spacious nave gives me much pleasure to pretend to be a noble Roman every time I wait in line for a teller. (My only complaint is with the weakness of the ornamental detail.) This is where the architect, as poet/prophet must distinguish between "the real needs of the people" and whatever the foolish mob might feel that it wants today. And this is also where Sullivan's philosophy of a democratic architecture (as well as his career) runs into serious trouble. (As we remember that his philosophy was being written as his career/life was at the beginning of its long, relentless tailspin.)
