 | | | The dictionary defines art as “human creative skill or its application” and “work showing this”, and architecture as “the design and construction of buildings”, “the style of a building” and “buildings collectively”. This suggests that art and architecture are distinct and separate. However, in truly great architecture, there is no other way for it to be formed than by the application of human creative skill.
No amount of computer modelling can replace the human touch of the architect. Certainly, in many instances, CAD has replaced the technical drawing side of architects’ work, and there is no doubt that the average client is delighted by a computer walk-through of their proposed project. In reality, though, these are merely adjuncts to the real work of architects. The art of architecture is not just the conception of a visual aesthetic. In creating a building, the architect works from a brief. In interpreting that brief lies the true art, for it is only when the interpretation is correct that a project can be really successful. | | Approaching the end of this millennium, we have gone beyond purely assessing our buildings in “artistic” or aesthetic terms. An eternally subjective and controversial term, “good design” today should result in functional, ecologically sustainable buildings with which the clients are happy and which are sympathetic to their surroundings.
In the modern construction environment dictated to by financial expediency, art and architecture are at war. We come across buildings described as “too arty” which are not to the taste of the average citizen, entirely out of context with their surroundings or which are unsuitable for the purpose intended, yet which are lauded and rewarded at architecture awards. Although the introduction of “people’s choice” awards has been an eye-opening process for many in the architectural profession, it has confirmed the view of others that many of our awards are out of touch with the real world. On frequent occasions the peoples’ choice differs from the jury’s - a situation not restricted to architecture but prevalent also in the other visual arts, with a most noteworthy example the Archibald Prize. | “In creating a building, the architect works from a brief. In interpreting that brief lies the true art, for it is only when the interpretation is correct that a project can be really successful.” | | In these circumstances we cannot dismiss the views of the public as ignorant or ill-informed. The views of the public must be heeded— they are our livelihood and our future. What is art or architecture if they are not for the people? It is encouraging to note that in recent years the views of architectural juries, in considering criteria beyond simple aesthetics, have more often mirrored those of the public. It is the responsibility and obligation of each member of the architectural profession to spend time assisting their clients and the community at large to understand the importance and benefits of good design, about its relationship to the built environment and how the design responses of today will contribute to the sort of place we leave for future generations. So is architecture art? In theory, yes. In practice …? The unique human creative skills that architects as artists bring to our community integrally affect our lives. “Good” design, like good art, is in the eyes of the beholder. It is our job to teach those eyes to appreciate and share different values—ones which will serve as a more hopeful legacy to future generations—and to see our we see art as it. Until then, and it is a way off, we must see architecture as our communities see it and respond to their notions of “art” and its relationship to architecture. |
|
