In article <1992Nov5.210459.9894@viewlogic.com>, brad@buck.viewlogic.com (Bradford Kellogg) writes:
|>
|> In Webster's:
|>
|> 1. The art or science of building; specif: the art or practice of |> designing and building structures and esp. habitable ones
|> 2. formation or construction as or as if as the result of concious act
|>
|> This does not specify the application of the creative imagination (in
|> this sense "art" is defined as the application of "skill") but
|> neither is it ruled out.
|>
(stuff removed -- see original)
|> Architecture does not have to be art, but it can be. To me, it should |> be. When art is left out of it, it becomes boring, it becomes |> oppressive. When there is no art, there is no delight. Since any |> architect worthy of the moniker subscribes to the credo "firmness, |> commodity, delight", all good architecture has to be art, IMAO (in my |> arrogant opinion). :-)
|>
Doesn't sound arrogant to me -- sounds like REASON. Those who would remove creativity and "delight" in architecture should be doomed to live in a concrete block cube with white walls...
