It happens that some buildings often designed in an innovative way, according to innovative concepts, which were later found to be crucial for the development of a specific era in the history of artistic development, are considered as a kind of architectural works of art. Architectural objects of this type are designed by globally known architects, they become the main objects of architecture, a kind of showpiece of a specific city, region of the country and quickly become tourist destination destinations and are covered with special protection as recognized as a significant contribution to the history of architecture and national heritage development of the country.
Do you agree with my interpretation of architectural works of art?
Please reply
Best wishes
Dariusz Prokopowicz Art is basically the communication of an idea through a specific medium of choice. Any object, and not just an architectural one per se, would be considered an element of art, more often than not, when it is aesthetically pleasing in terms of structure and attention to detail and, more importantly, has a significant meaning behind it. Why was the building constructed in the first place? Why was it designed the way it is? If it is simply a building that serves to provide people with a place to live, then it is merely reduced to a social asset with little or no artistic value. However, buildings that are meticulously designed to symbolize a certain landmark or culture, for example, can be considered an element of art, epitomized by Italy's Colosseum.
Architecture includes the element of art, but its importance in design varies according to the type of buildings. As it is less important in the functional buildings, but the buildings that are intended to be iconic often have aesthetic or symbolic considerations are large, even if it negatively affects the function, as happened in the Opera Sydney.
Dariusz Prokopowicz the subject is very interesting!
It is not to be concealed that an architectural work that becomes important to the atropogenic space and culture must have certain significant features that build the context. Sometimes these features are set up, sometimes appear "by the way". The fact is that it is these features that determine whether the object will be appreciated and - in fact, will be inscribed in the art (applied art?). Another phenomenon is time, which is undoubtedly a factor shaping the demand for art and thus affects the perception of the building; not all new buildings are automatically an art (although culturally valuable), and many historic buildings become culturally important, although the decision is sometimes questionable. I have personally dealt with the question of architecture as a determinant of the re-identifying in the city; mayby some articles in my profile will be helpful:
1. "Landmarks” - signs of the place. Identification of urban space in the context of location problems
2. Świadomość lokalizacyjna współczesnego człowieka
sincerelly,
Bartek Felski
Any architectural work must have an idea or form that is often covered with the rest of the artwork, which may be a color, decorative element, or otherwise.
Indeed, I agree with you. Please take a look at my book:
Architecture Evermore, 2017 Hisham G. Abusaada (Author)
https://www.amazon.com/Architecture-Evermore-Hisham-G-Abusaada/dp/1482877619
The question can be read in two ways at least.
First, consider a Greek column. A capitol was a technically needed member to collect and transfer loads on the top a pillar. Later, it turned Doric, Corinthian, etc., while a column it crowned developed, too. Up to an extent that the plastic decoration wasn´t a structural member at all, but a mere attachment to a brick, or later a steel shaft. The lesser the need, the greater the elaboration of acanthus leaves. They still continued to apply them, as an artistic neccesity. A sign of continuous heritage, or reverence, or universal language of art.
As the story progressed, pre-fab capitols came up as early as 18th century. Inevitably, some were appiled wrongl, upside down, etc. They weren´t understood anymore, and thus began the story´s end.
Second, in 20th century we learned to explain everything through needs. Utility requirements, form follow function, etc. Fancy that, but sooner or later an architect comes to design a piece where an explanation of all the needs and considerations would be just too lengthy. Then, he refers to architecture as a liberal art, and himself as an artist: an inexplanable piece gets declared an artistic expression.
Which kind of kills a debate.
Technically speaking all architectural objects are works of art. However, if we are looking for distinguished or prominent works of art, several criteria must be considered. Innovativeness is only one of them. Firstly, as Bartek Felski said, one of many significant agents is time. What is not considered as art today, could be considered as art in the future. Unfortunately, there are many examples of buildings, which were intentionally destroyed because they were not perceived as art at that time, but now would be protected as works of art. This is part of the reason why one should be very careful, when demolishing not only public and city-important buildings, but also personal villas, old factories etc.
Another important factor is relation of the object to its vicinity and to genius loci of the place. Sydney Opera House would not be so significant, if it had not been placed in that specific location. When dealing with the surrounding environment (nature, architecture, urban plane, etc.), building must achieve unity of place, material, form, function and building tradition and its overall gestalt must be clear and harmonized. If the object has these qualities, then it truly belongs to given place and can be considered as true work of art.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Design
- Architecture