THIS WAS THE THIRD EDITION
*
**
"Architecture is Art, so for
you to call any special kind of Architectural design "Art" is redundant..."
T.A.
*
Wings: The following
quote is a part of my previous response to the above statement. The
last paragraph asks several questions [actually one question with several
contexts] but begs the question. With this Counterpoint I will begin
my attempt to reconcile that deficiency.
*
"Now the question about Architecture
[or
photography, or anything else you choose] being Art...This is a question
often and heatedly debated in the art circles. There are as many
definitions as their are artists and almost as many as there are people.
You have to satisfy yourself for now
on this one, however I have a couple of questions for you: If Architecture
is Art and cooking is Art what isn't Art? What is the difference
between creating a painting and creating a building? is there
a difference? [Presuming you can come up with something
that you are willing to eliminate from your definition of Art] Is there
a difference in the process of creating Art and creating something that
isn't Art? Is there a difference in how you appreciate Art and how
you appreciate something that isn't Art? Does it really matter whether
we call something Art or not?
From the point of view of someone who
does both Art [see now you know for sure that I don't think that Architecture
is Art] and Architecture there are vast differences in the process,
the purpose, and the result... and those differences really matter in how
well I do either one. 
There are similarities but there are also similarities between steel and
carrots but we don't call steel food."
*
One of the identity problems facing
Architecture today is the issue of What it is. With the advent of
computer aided drafting and the rapidly expanding repertoire of completely
malleable amorphous building materials [like expanded polystyrene {styrofoam}]
the creation of building forms has become almost whimsical. Architecture
is at risk of becoming disconnected from its purpose and its responsibility
to the process of construction that was so much a part of Architecture
in the not so distant past.
It is now incredibly easy to create
precisely documented complex and arbitrary shapes on the computer, it is
so easy in fact, that it is almost accepted that this IS what Architecture
IS. In the business world the concept of Value Added is one method
of analyzing the effectiveness of an organization. Processes that
add to the value of the actual product that is marketed by the organization
are critical processes and all others are overhead. If this analytic
process is applied to Architecture you first have to decide what the purpose
of Architecture is: is it great pictures or is it great buildings?
If the end product is pictures then
drafting is value added and the process of creating art in the drawings
should be maximized. If the end product is buildings then drafting
is non value added and should be minimized as a process; the knowledge
and expertise of creating and organizing buildings should be emphasized.
My contention is that the product of
Architecture is buildings and as such the documentation should be reduced
to the minimum necessary to efficiently and effectively construct the actual
building. Architecture has little meaning if it isn't or can't be
built. Documentation that does not contribute to the buildability
of the project is an unnecessary drain on the resources of the design organization.
To be clear, concise, and correct should be the mandate of the Architectural
documentation process.
So that takes care of the construction
documents [for now]. What about the building? Is it Art?
Good Architecture
is client driven. It has life and success primarily by satisfying
the client/end user's needs. It is not good Architecture if it fails
to satisfy the client/end user's needs. Art on the other hand is
internally driven, the end "user" chooses the art after it is created.
The "best" art is in fact frequently ignominious at it's creation and not
accepted until long after it's creation. Art is a creation of the
"soul" of the artist not the soul of the client, it may resonate with the
soul of the client but it was not created from that. The best
Architecture is a creation for the soul of the client and only having satisfied
this can it satisfy the soul of the Architect. Very different stuff!
Unfortunately the label "It is Art"
is often used as an excuse for not satisfying the end user's needs.
The building professions and their clients would be far better served if
Art didn't enter into the picture either as a justification or an end.
*
Obviously there is a lot more to this,
and it will follow, eventually.
*
*This page is continually
under construction.
It is revised as notable comments are received and yours
are welcome.
