What aspect of architecture do you think makes it a work of art? Is it the way it looks? Is it the way one moves through it? Or is it something more...like a feeling one gets? What building do you consider a work of art and why?
I think that every detail, from the visual outer shell to the way light enters the building or a special design for circulation; of architecture has the potential to make it a true work of art. I think that, although art is connected with feelings, you can think something is art without getting a strong emotion from it. For instance, you can think that something definitely did not take a lot of craftsmanship to make a piece, but you would still call it a piece of art when talking to someone due to the fact that by MOMA’s (or a society of some sort) standards it is a great work of art that is somehow worthy of the $170,000 they just paid to possess it. I think it should be our aspiration, as architects to design structures that will not only pass the bar to be entitled ‘art’ but to evoke emotions like you suggested. I consider the Basilica di Santa Maria del Fiore to be an awesome work of art.
As a freshman, I thought that the way a building looked made it cool or something like that, but I neglected to realized a deeper relationship between the building and its designer. The details of a space or a building make it a true work of art because the details that a designer makes begin to explain the designer and what he/she considers important. The details are what make a building unique. I agree with you about the lighting aspect of architecture also. It can be used to make a building beautiful. I consider Fallingwater a work of art. It's just something about how Wright integrated subtle natural aspects in the house. One detail that I really love is that anyone in the house can hear the flow of the waterfall underneath, however, it can only be seen from the top floor. This emphasizes a connection with nature...not visually but mentally. A detail like that shows Wright's appreciation of the natural world.
I think that every detail, from the visual outer shell to the way light enters the building or a special design for circulation; of architecture has the potential to make it a true work of art. I think that, although art is connected with feelings, you can think something is art without getting a strong emotion from it. For instance, you can think that something definitely did not take a lot of craftsmanship to make a piece, but you would still call it a piece of art when talking to someone due to the fact that by MOMA’s (or a society of some sort) standards it is a great work of art that is somehow worthy of the $170,000 they just paid to possess it. I think it should be our aspiration, as architects to design structures that will not only pass the bar to be entitled ‘art’ but to evoke emotions like you suggested. I consider the Basilica di Santa Maria del Fiore to be an awesome work of art.
ReplyDeleteAs a freshman, I thought that the way a building looked made it cool or something like that, but I neglected to realized a deeper relationship between the building and its designer. The details of a space or a building make it a true work of art because the details that a designer makes begin to explain the designer and what he/she considers important. The details are what make a building unique. I agree with you about the lighting aspect of architecture also. It can be used to make a building beautiful. I consider Fallingwater a work of art. It's just something about how Wright integrated subtle natural aspects in the house. One detail that I really love is that anyone in the house can hear the flow of the waterfall underneath, however, it can only be seen from the top floor. This emphasizes a connection with nature...not visually but mentally. A detail like that shows Wright's appreciation of the natural world.
ReplyDelete