Quote:
|
see architecture as ideas, and not just appearance, and to help you appreciate modernism, so that you can enjoy it.
|
This is a big problem. Architecture is not art. Architecture has real constraints based on actual programmatic, functional needs of habitation and urbanism.
I am extremely cautious of anyone who tells me that aesthetically speaking, architecture isn't about style. Architecture is never abstract. Sculpture is abstract, but architecture must first be functional. Architects are artisans, charged with making functional items beautiful, not artists, who are charged with creating abstract beauty from nothing. The difference is not semantic. You can include abstract art in architecture, but the bottom line is that whatever art you include has to be just another kind of style, or else you're not doing architecture, you're doing sculpture.
Occasionally sculpture writ large is the functional program. The Sydney Opera House is more valuable as an iconic sculpture than it ever will be as an Opera House. In those very rare cases, it is acceptable to put art first. For most buildings, it isn't appropriate to go beyond style.
Threaded Mode