Architecture design, not Art

Ever since man began constructing in our world, the terms architecture and architect have been in play. There is an age old debate about whether architecture can be defined as art, the traditional definition of an architect states otherwise and here are a few reasons why this is justified.

Architecture is not all about the physical “form” of a structure, but a compilation of all the things that go into making that structure what it is, and make sure it can survive in the practical world, serving a particular purpose. This purpose is the Function of that structure i.e., a multistoried, high rise building is insignificant if it can’t solve the real estate problems of the current world and cannot house a group of offices and residences per say. Function is what the structure will primarily be used as or for, upon this another aspect of meeting the client’s needs comes into play, this may include subjects from concept to mere space requirement issues and this is something an architect cannot do away with on his building, (unless of course he owns it and gets to decide what he wants to do with it)

Next, engineering and the physics of the structures are the major concerns. Nobody would want to live in a structure where the roof could collapse any second. Minimizing Civilian casualties even in case of accidents is what we thrive towards not the other way around, we would have too many rich doctors. Best way to define and draw a fine line between architecture and art can be done by comparing live installations and buildings. Then finally there are constraints that one must follow to make sure the building is stable and useable. Art does not have boundaries or have any obligations towards the laws of physics, and the science of practical world. Art has infinite possibilities and is direct translation of one’s imagination.

Live installations may or may not serve any function, but the heart and soul of one such thing is its form. The form is all one can work on for that and that’s about it. In buildings forms maybe a brainchild of the concept, the form is not something that the architect starts his design with but something they end up with upon meeting all the technical and functional needs of the structure. Form isn’t all that there is to a building, it is part of the design, aesthetics merely enhance the building, they aren’t all there is to it.

So as far as the debate goes, no architecture isn’t art but it could become art when incorporated in the works of an artist.

P.s- because I spent too much time on this stoopid ass-ignment, and I want to give people who might fall prey to this topic in the future more material to refer ( or steal :p )