No, architecture is not (just) art
A building can be a beautiful object in its own right. A building is also a component of a larger whole. It fits in with the surrounding environment, whether other buildings in a series of row houses or the natural landscape in a more pastoral setting. It interacts with the humans who go in it and those who walk around it.
When we only see a building as a piece of art, we end up with an architectural profession that reveres bizarre buildings that look impressive in a model but don't accomplish their substantive purpose very well. We end up with New York Times architecture critic Nicolai Ouroussoff who never met a famous architect whose plan he didn't like. And we end up with exhibits at the Kreeger Museum on "architecture as art" that train future architects to think they should aspire to buildings like Philip Johnson's.
There's nothing wrong with making spectacular buildings, nothing wrong with being a famous architect, and modern buildings can be beautiful. But I'd like architecture critics to write about a building's influence on the street as much as they write about the "chiseled setbacks and crisp vertical lines". When is the Kreeger going to have Vibrant Streetlife as Art? From the look of their building (designed by the same Philip Johnson), creating outdoor public spaces may be furthest from their minds.
- Consumers say they like trains. Why don't economists care?
- The Washington region is the world's 77th largest urban area
- Smarter growth will expand Prince George's tax base
- Topic of the week: Suburban retrofits in our region
- Montgomery backtracks on a sprawl-inducing highway
- How well do you know Metro? It's whichWMATA week 48
- The Silver Line might change how you bus to Wolf Trap