ARCHITECTURE - Sculpture.

- - The original note follows - -

Xref: news.ysu.edu alt.architecture:155
Organization: Senior, Architecture, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Path: psuvm!news.ysu.edu!malgudi.oar.net!caen!spool.mu.edu!uwm.edu!
cs.utexas.edu!hellgate.utah.edu!csn!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!cis.ohio-state.ed
u!news.sei.cmu.edu!bb3.andrew.cmu.edu!crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!andrew.cmu.edu!ab
3l+
Newsgroups: alt.architecture
Message-ID: <IfYFS9m00iUx82Hnlq@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1993 14:50:33 -0500
From: Andrew James Bordick <ab3l+@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: This Arch.+sculpture thing
Lines: 25


I am wondering why the need arises to categorize what is produced by
both Architects and sculptors. Their art forms may overlap. An
architect may design a building that the inherent characteristics of
sculpture. Perhaps the volumes seem to have been subtracted from a
larger mass or the strokes of an instrument are apparent on the skin.
Conversely, a sculptor may produce a piece that is inhabitable or large
enough to climb or use in that sense.
The idea of context has nothing to do with a definition of what is
architecture and what is sculpture. Is the Guggenheim Museum
architecture or sculpture. Well, it is both. . . to varying degrees.
The architect is an artist in many media. The sculptor is an artist in
many media. We are three dimensional designers. What we create should
not be limited to definitions. If Corbu looked at his design at
Ronchamp and said, "it looks too much like a piece of sculpture!" Then
we would all be robbed of a masterpiece of human creation.
The definition of Architecture should be left to those who can't do
or understand it. I hate to coin an overly used phrase but it applies.
. . . .

Don't talk. . . . Build. -------Mies

Andy B
Carnegie Mellon U.
Dept. of Arch.
Partial thread listing: