I would encourage continuing discussion.
Thanks.
Howard
- - The original note follows - -
Path: psuvm!atlantis.psu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!cs.utexas.edu!
newsfeed.rice.edu!uw-beaver!news.u.washington.edu!stein.u.washington.edu!pirone
From: pirone@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (keith Pirone kenny)
Newsgroups: alt.architecture
Subject: Re: architecture, not sculpture
Date: 27 Feb 1993 07:56:03 GMT
Organization: University of Washington
Lines: 40
Message-ID: <1mn6qjINN42u@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <1993Feb20.071319.3519@xxxxxxxx>
<churayj-220293024547@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<1993Feb24.042534.26287@xxxxxxxxxx>
NNTP-Posting-Host: stein.u.washington.edu
In article <1993Feb24.042534.26287@xxxxxxxxxx> randolph@xxxxxxxxxx (Randolph
Fritz) writes:
}There is an aspect of >craft< to architecture;
Uh oh, the C word.
Throughout this thread the question of architecture as sculpture
has been placed in the context of the art/craft - form/fuction
dichotomy. It is as if architects walk a tightrope balancing
these dualistic ideals, leaning to far to one side or the other
results in failure. I'd agree that yes, architecture is a craft
because of its basic intent of fuction, and yes, architecture is
art (sculpture) becuase of our abilities to impart on that
functional object layers of abstract meaning. One might argue
that what seperates sculpture from architecture is that
sculpture (art) is non-contextual, but when someone creates a
that what seperates architecture from sculpture is that
sculpture (art) is non-contextual , but when someone creates
a piece of contextual art or a an architect refuses that his
building has anything to do with context, the argument fails.
As i see the dichotomy fail. Only we in the industrialized
world define as different 'arts and crafts'. I dont see the
extremes of form or function lessening the ability for good
architecture, as suggested earlier in the thread. And i dont
see a building as boring because it is strictly functional,
i see it as boring becuase it was built by unimaginative
architects. The abstract argument of form and function as
polar opposites is too often used to shift responsibilty
from architect to architectural ideal. If what Scully
said "there's no difference between architecture and city
planning, they must now be treated as one", is true then
where does that leave the question of architecture and
sculpture? I dont think we should be afraid to let art
spill out of its frame.
"do you use words, or do they use you"- graffit, Seattle
j.f.fulton
j.f.fulton
dome@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
.
Thanks.
Howard
- - The original note follows - -
Path: psuvm!atlantis.psu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!cs.utexas.edu!
newsfeed.rice.edu!uw-beaver!news.u.washington.edu!stein.u.washington.edu!pirone
From: pirone@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (keith Pirone kenny)
Newsgroups: alt.architecture
Subject: Re: architecture, not sculpture
Date: 27 Feb 1993 07:56:03 GMT
Organization: University of Washington
Lines: 40
Message-ID: <1mn6qjINN42u@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <1993Feb20.071319.3519@xxxxxxxx>
<churayj-220293024547@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<1993Feb24.042534.26287@xxxxxxxxxx>
NNTP-Posting-Host: stein.u.washington.edu
In article <1993Feb24.042534.26287@xxxxxxxxxx> randolph@xxxxxxxxxx (Randolph
Fritz) writes:
}There is an aspect of >craft< to architecture;
Uh oh, the C word.
Throughout this thread the question of architecture as sculpture
has been placed in the context of the art/craft - form/fuction
dichotomy. It is as if architects walk a tightrope balancing
these dualistic ideals, leaning to far to one side or the other
results in failure. I'd agree that yes, architecture is a craft
because of its basic intent of fuction, and yes, architecture is
art (sculpture) becuase of our abilities to impart on that
functional object layers of abstract meaning. One might argue
that what seperates sculpture from architecture is that
sculpture (art) is non-contextual, but when someone creates a
that what seperates architecture from sculpture is that
sculpture (art) is non-contextual , but when someone creates
a piece of contextual art or a an architect refuses that his
building has anything to do with context, the argument fails.
As i see the dichotomy fail. Only we in the industrialized
world define as different 'arts and crafts'. I dont see the
extremes of form or function lessening the ability for good
architecture, as suggested earlier in the thread. And i dont
see a building as boring because it is strictly functional,
i see it as boring becuase it was built by unimaginative
architects. The abstract argument of form and function as
polar opposites is too often used to shift responsibilty
from architect to architectural ideal. If what Scully
said "there's no difference between architecture and city
planning, they must now be treated as one", is true then
where does that leave the question of architecture and
sculpture? I dont think we should be afraid to let art
spill out of its frame.
"do you use words, or do they use you"- graffit, Seattle
j.f.fulton
j.f.fulton
dome@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
.