Should Architecture Be Considered Art?

There was a time when architects were considered the epitome of the artist, scribbling designs for grand buildings and inventions from their imagination, just like Da Vinci. Collaborations with other craftsmen and designers were rare; they had to be a renaissance man who had a keen understanding too of other sciences and of human nature.

Image source: architectureas.wordpress.com

Nowadays, with architecture becoming more and more specialized, a lot of established architects are arguing that their duty in society is to conceptualize and concretize the environment’s form, not its content. They argue that architecture is not so much art as pure self-expression, the broadcasting and realization of the personal interests and conceits of the architect.

There lies the conundrum. If architecture were to be truly about making buildings and infrastructure for societal progress and public betterment, shouldn’t it be less personal and more functional? Shouldn’t it be less about exotic designs and unique geometries and more of what truly works?

Of course, this is a highly social take on art and its duty. If personal vision is the reason particular architects stand out in history, then maybe architecture is indeed art. But if eccentricities overrode the utility and needed adjustment of a design to, say, the context of a neighborhood, then maybe it’s time we reexamine the role of the architect in society. After all, art should not excuse the architect from his or her duty and responsibility to the so-called other.

Image source: aasarchitecture.com

Hi, my name isJohn Eilermann, and I’m currently studying architecture in St. Louis. I like to blog about the sights I see and the lessons I learn as I explore various architectural concepts. For similar updates, check out this webpage.