From: churayj@yalevm.edu (raymond Chung)
Subject: Re: architecture is not art? Phooey!
Followup-To: alt.architecture
Organization: Public Macs, Academic Computing, Yale University
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 22:07:31 GMT

In article <y9h1jq-@rpi.edu>, thomat@vccsouth29.its.rpi.edu (Todd Michael
Thomas) wrote:
> 
> architecture is art ( infact, it is really and truly just sculpture with
> big materials and tools and a large scale  =D =D =D), but aside from sheds,
> quonoset huts, and pre-fab housing (not pre-fabrication but cookie-cutter
> design) archtiure is design and imbibed creativity with a purpose and intent,
> and regardless  of whether it is functional or not, or designed to be functional, it is STILL art!  As long as  passion and thought to CREATE an aesthetic,
> functional, pleasing, or whatever space (modern architects while they may be
> disaffecting ornament are still creating spaces with certain qualities) it IS
> art!....           sorry for all the caps... touchy subject =D
> 
> todd thomas                =======
> thomat@rpi.edu              @===@
>                              | |
>                              | |
>                              | |
>                              | |
>                              | |
>                              ===
>                             =====     "Times may change, but design remains."

Hey!  Where's the entasis on that column?  Let's not further corrupt
ornamental systems of the past!...

Ok, that was in humor.

In response to the text, however, I have to assert that architecture
stripped of ornament is a lower form of architecture.  "Art," sure, but not
as powerful as architecture once was and can be again.  (My previous post
lamenting the divorce of art and architecture was meant to point out the
general trend in our society to limit architecture from reaching into the
realms of sculpture and painting.  I guess on a strictly definitive level,
architecture still is art, but that gets around the question of why we do
not readily accept, or even insist on ornamented architecture.

I think it may have made sense in Corbusier's time to concentrate solely on
the form of the building, for they were investigating new technologies and
materials, plus they had finally gotten around to exploding all the
conventions of architecture.  But now we have mastered, to a sufficient
degree anyway, the art of shaping space, controlling light, etc.  In fact
Sullivan had suggested exactly this, that we spend several years exploring
the forms modern buildings (without ornament), for only then can we
understand how to fully integrate ornament into these buildings.  I say
it's time to move on to ornament.  According to Sullivan, we are now in a
position to make the third great architecture, to follow Classical and
Gothic, and actually finding the balance between the two: intellectual and
emotional, static and dynamic.

But we first have to admit that we need ornament to do so.  It's a lame
plea, but let's get people to ask for ornament, and so change the demands
made on architects.  All it would take is a group of dedicated,
ornament-loving (and so architecture-loving) zealots to show the public
what can be done.  Who'll join me?

                                 ? = ! > .

                                                   r a y m o n d  C h u n g
Newsgroups: alt.architecture