From: churayj@yalevm.edu (raymond Chung)
Subject: architecture is not art (!)
Followup-To: alt.architecture
Organization: Public Macs, Academic Computing, Yale University
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 04:34:42 GMT

Sure is quiet in this newsgroup...

Let's start a new thread:  "Architecture is not art."

Here's a story from Yale architecture: recently, at a certain crit, a
student presented her design for a beach chair, which was very
"sculptural."  The jury looked at it, and said, more or less, "It's nice,
but it's art.  Make it architectural; architecture is a profession in which
the architect makes drawings, and others read the drawings and fabricate
the design.  You cannot do that with your present design."  Immediately,
Professor Kent Bloomer, champion of ornament, maybe you've heard of him,
spoke up.  He argued that the highly figural chair was no different from a
frieze above an entrance, and that it was plenty "architectural."  He then
cited Sullivan's buildings, and Gaudi's, and the Oxford Science Museum,
etc.  The jury retorted.  "All those examples are from the past. 
Architecture has to move forward."  To this, my hero, Bloomer, parried:
"Yes, you're right, maybe Alberti and the entire group of Renaissance
architects should not have looked BACKWARDS at Greek architecture.  Maybe
they should have gone forward!"  Eventually, another student stood up and
said, "Why don't we not name it and just look at what it is?"

So Mr. Bloomer's point was lost on the stubborn jury members.  The point
is, there is a very real philosophical split between art and architecture
today, and it's preventing architects from exploring the expressive
possibilities of ornamented architecture.  In fact, few studios even
address the potential of ornament.  How many of you have studied ornament
at all?  Are you even familiar with the arguments of Focilon, Summerson, or
more recently, Kristeva?  Ornament has the potential to actually speak as a
language to viewers.  Without it, buildings barely reach viewers except as
big forms with certain abstract qualities.  Architecture was born wearing
ornament.  Why is it that in this century we have deemed it irrelevant?

There are three big arguments for the removal of ornament, namely that it
is too expensive, people won't understand it, and the technology doesn't
exist to fabricate it.  All three are very wrong.  They are merely
unfounded assumptions.  Even the slightest examination of our modern world
will show that there exists technology to do it, inexpensively, and people
will always understand the content.  Just try it.

I say architecture IS art.  It may seem hard to disagree, but there really
is a subversive, silent mass of people who vehemently resist the marriage
of the two.  Look at the federal government, here in the US: all government
contracts have a "1% plan for art," which allows one percent of the budget
to pay for any "art," meaning ornament.  For one thing, it's usually about
one-third the amount of money needed for a fully functional ornamental
system.  But more importantly, why do we let our government distinguish art
from architecture in the first place?

                                 ? = ! > .

                                                   r a y m o n d  C h u n g