Architecture may be sculpted. It may be a container of sculpture.
It can even be sculpture. However, in the latter case it may not
be architecture. Instead, it may be sculpture that is used as
architecture. There *could* be a distinction here.
Howard
- - The original note follows - -
Newsgroups: alt.architecture
Path: psuvm!atlantis.psu.edu!newsserver.jvnc.net!howland.reston.ans.net!
wupost!bigboy.sbc.com!news.mtholyoke.edu!nic.umass.edu!noc.near.net!viewlog.vie
wlogic.com!brad
From: brad@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Bradford Kellogg)
Subject: Re: architecture, not sculpture
Message-ID: <1993Feb22.184353.23997@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Originator: brad@buck
Sender: brad@buck (Bradford Kellogg)
Nntp-Posting-Host: buck
Organization: Viewlogic Systems, Inc.
References: <churayj-190293220344@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<C2tx3L.2DL@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1993 18:43:53 GMT
Lines: 42
In article <C2tx3L.2DL@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, amn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Andrew Noble)
writes:
|>
[some stuff deleted]
|> I believe that a seperation between these two (and that means that I admit
|> that there is, but just can't define it), begins with the function of
shelter.
|> Architecture MUST provide shelter.
|>
I think you're on the right track here. Sculpture, as I understand it, is
pure art. It is art for its own sake, not serving any utilitarian function,
providing an object that exists only to be beautiful, only to warm the human
spirit. Sculpture can, of course, be part of something that serves some other
purpose as well, but I think the essence of sculpture or any pure art is only
in its form. Its function is its form. Nothing wrong with this, of course, in
fact I rejoice in it. We need pure art. We cannot live without it.
Architecture, on the other hand, while it can (and the best of it does) employ
art, it has a function beyond the form. A stairway can be made beautiful, but
it remains a stairway. You can still climb up it. But simply because I have to
climb up it, I would much rather it be beautiful.
At the risk of seeming perverse, I would compare architecture to food. We need
to eat, and we can survive on bland food, but given the choice, why not eat
gourmet food ? The utility is the same, but one is much better than the other.
One bores us, the other delights us and makes us feel good. I think architecture
is the same way. We need shelter, and we can survive in concrete bunkers, but
why not build a delightful palace, at least in concept, so we can feel good
about being in it ?
At its best, architecture is sculpture that shelters us. It is not *only* art,
rather, it is performing a chore with grace and beauty, being functional in the
very best of forms.
- BK
It can even be sculpture. However, in the latter case it may not
be architecture. Instead, it may be sculpture that is used as
architecture. There *could* be a distinction here.
Howard
- - The original note follows - -
Newsgroups: alt.architecture
Path: psuvm!atlantis.psu.edu!newsserver.jvnc.net!howland.reston.ans.net!
wupost!bigboy.sbc.com!news.mtholyoke.edu!nic.umass.edu!noc.near.net!viewlog.vie
wlogic.com!brad
From: brad@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Bradford Kellogg)
Subject: Re: architecture, not sculpture
Message-ID: <1993Feb22.184353.23997@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Originator: brad@buck
Sender: brad@buck (Bradford Kellogg)
Nntp-Posting-Host: buck
Organization: Viewlogic Systems, Inc.
References: <churayj-190293220344@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<C2tx3L.2DL@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1993 18:43:53 GMT
Lines: 42
In article <C2tx3L.2DL@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, amn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Andrew Noble)
writes:
|>
[some stuff deleted]
|> I believe that a seperation between these two (and that means that I admit
|> that there is, but just can't define it), begins with the function of
shelter.
|> Architecture MUST provide shelter.
|>
I think you're on the right track here. Sculpture, as I understand it, is
pure art. It is art for its own sake, not serving any utilitarian function,
providing an object that exists only to be beautiful, only to warm the human
spirit. Sculpture can, of course, be part of something that serves some other
purpose as well, but I think the essence of sculpture or any pure art is only
in its form. Its function is its form. Nothing wrong with this, of course, in
fact I rejoice in it. We need pure art. We cannot live without it.
Architecture, on the other hand, while it can (and the best of it does) employ
art, it has a function beyond the form. A stairway can be made beautiful, but
it remains a stairway. You can still climb up it. But simply because I have to
climb up it, I would much rather it be beautiful.
At the risk of seeming perverse, I would compare architecture to food. We need
to eat, and we can survive on bland food, but given the choice, why not eat
gourmet food ? The utility is the same, but one is much better than the other.
One bores us, the other delights us and makes us feel good. I think architecture
is the same way. We need shelter, and we can survive in concrete bunkers, but
why not build a delightful palace, at least in concept, so we can feel good
about being in it ?
At its best, architecture is sculpture that shelters us. It is not *only* art,
rather, it is performing a chore with grace and beauty, being functional in the
very best of forms.
- BK