Responding to msg by David.Smith@xxxxxx (David Lee Smith) on
>I would strongly question the premise that architecture
>is like "all fields of art" and, further, that it
>should strive for "autonomy from everything except its
>own internal dynamics." For architecture, the ultimate
>and quintessential task is the interpretation of ideas
>through physical form for human habitation.
>Architecture does not have "natural tendencies," and
>any "internal dynamics" that might exist are more
>related to individual preferences and politics than to
>anything inherent to the field. Architecture is not a
>filed based on faith or beleif, although it might be a
>vehicle that can provide expressions of such ideas.
>
>I cannot accept the notion that function and social
>responsibility are not concerns that are integral to
>architecture.
Well, this excellent statement impresses me as did that of
Garry Stevens. They are not mutually exclusive, I suspect.
Hope it leads to an intense constructive argument, though. Mr.
Stevens, please.
John
>I would strongly question the premise that architecture
>is like "all fields of art" and, further, that it
>should strive for "autonomy from everything except its
>own internal dynamics." For architecture, the ultimate
>and quintessential task is the interpretation of ideas
>through physical form for human habitation.
>Architecture does not have "natural tendencies," and
>any "internal dynamics" that might exist are more
>related to individual preferences and politics than to
>anything inherent to the field. Architecture is not a
>filed based on faith or beleif, although it might be a
>vehicle that can provide expressions of such ideas.
>
>I cannot accept the notion that function and social
>responsibility are not concerns that are integral to
>architecture.
Well, this excellent statement impresses me as did that of
Garry Stevens. They are not mutually exclusive, I suspect.
Hope it leads to an intense constructive argument, though. Mr.
Stevens, please.
John