Architecture As Art

[Concerto of Atlantis]

In the Romantic Manifesto, Ayn Rand states that utalitarian objects such as Cars cannot be defined as art. But isn't the purpose of a building primarily utalitarian - that is, to provide shelter? If this is the case, then why is architecture regarded as art when a car is not?

[AwakeAndFree]

In the Romantic Manifesto, Ayn Rand states that utalitarian objects such as Cars cannot be defined as art. But isn't the purpose of a building primarily utalitarian - that is, to provide shelter? If this is the case, then why is architecture regarded as art when a car is not?

I would say a house can no more be a work of art than a car. However, there are some aspects of designing a house or a car which are "artistic" - in a sense that they do involve a metaphysical value judgement and require an aesthetic talent.

[Guest Kien]

In the Romantic Manifesto, Ayn Rand states that utalitarian objects such as Cars cannot be defined as art. But isn't the purpose of a building primarily utalitarian - that is, to provide shelter? If this is the case, then why is architecture regarded as art when a car is not?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Architecture is not regarded as Art by any standard of judgement.

Ayn Rand did not define Architecture but considered Architecture in separate and unique category that is outside of Art. (It is indeed unique and very exciting to me in that Architecture is one of the few disciplines that straddles, mediates and integrates the life of the mind/spirit AND the need for physical survival. Other disciplines seem to be content, or even insisting on delineating their special area on one side of the line or the other. Music and poetry are the usual metaphors for architecture but what kind of music or poetry?They both require a certain kind of philosophy. Architecture then, must be an Applied Philosophy.... in concrete. Objectivism being one of the few system that integrates the mind and body, rationally; and so share a common ground with the uniqueness of Architecture amomg other disciplines. That Ayn Rand chose this specific profession as a vehicle for her philosophy in The Fountainhead showed that she knew more about this unique characteristic of Architecture than present day architects, many of whom are either exterior decorators or sculptors. )

Architecture is traditionally known as an Applied Art, which at minimum could be any building with decorations applied on its surfaces. Shelter and Functionality is an important aspect of Architecture but mere Utilitarian buildings such as a warehouse is not considered as Architecture.

A car is an object of Industrial Design, with Form and Design as an aspect of its physical existence, and is itself considered as an Applied Art.

All Applied Arts requires Utility as a factor in some degree.

Architecture requires shelter for human beings: a house, an office building, a skyscrapper etfc.. Industrial Design requires usefulness for human beings: a car, a telephone, a kettle etc...

Art is an end in itself, without the requirements of Function in any degree: a painting,a novel, a symphony, a sculpture etc....

Kien

[stephen_speicher]

Architecture is not regarded as Art by any standard of judgement. 

Ayn Rand did not define Architecture but considered Architecture in separate and unique category that is outside of Art.

This is mistaken. In her essay Art and Cognition Miss Rand identifies architecture, along with painting, literature, sculpture and music, as one of the five major branches of art. And, further, in her writings she frequently refers to architecture as art. Why would you say that she placed architecture "outside of Art?"

[stephen_speicher]

I would say a house can no more be a work of art than a car.

Note that Ayn Rand thought otherwise. See her essay Art and Cognition in which she includes architecture as art.

[Concerto of Atlantis]

This is mistaken. In her essay Art and Cognition Miss Rand identifies architecture, along with painting, literature, sculpture and music, as one of the five major branches of art. And, further, in her writings she frequently refers to architecture as art. Why would you say that she placed architecture "outside of Art?"

Yes, this is what I was referring to, Stephen. I was reading 'Art and Cognition' last night. What ultimately distinguishes architecture from an automobile?

[stephen_speicher]

Yes, this is what I was referring to, Stephen. I was reading 'Art and Cognition' last night. What ultimately distinguishes architecture from an automobile?

An automobile can be sculpted into a very pleasing shape (god knows I enjoy mine!) but its non-representational form is not capable of expressing metaphysical value-judgments. Architecture, as a form of sculpture on a grand scale, can express a view of man and how he should live. These are metaphysical value judgments -- abstract, conceptual meanings -- that other well-designed utilitarian objects can only, at best, hint at, rather than directly convey.

[Concerto of Atlantis]

And a well-designed car can express a view on how man should drive, right? Are you saying that architecture expresses how man should live, and therefore is a more abstract idea, whereas expressing how a man should drive is a more concrete idea?

(on a sidenote, you drive a C5 Corvette, right? If so, beautiful car. Are you impressed with the design of the C6? I'm a rotary fan myself, but I've always respected the Corvette, although I doubt I'd ever buy one.)

[Charlotte Corday]

An automobile can be sculpted into a very pleasing shape (god knows I enjoy mine!) but its non-representational form is not capable of expressing metaphysical value-judgments. Architecture, as a form of sculpture on a grand scale, can express a view of man and how he should live.

Ayn Rand said that in regard to a work of art, "It is the viewer's or reader's sense of life that responds...by a complex, yet automatic reaction of acceptance and approval, or rejection and condemnation" ("Art and Sense of Life," Romantic Manifesto, 35).

I find that I can respond as intensely to the object below as to any piano concerto. Furthermore, while I do not own this classic automobile (alas!), it makes a very definite statement about the lucky person who does drive it. Who could get behind the wheel of this beauty and not experience unalloyed delight?

[stephen_speicher]

And a well-designed car can express a view on how man should drive, right? Are you saying that architecture expresses how man should live, and therefore is a more abstract idea, whereas expressing how a man should drive is a more concrete idea?

In the sense that non-representational designed objects are primarily appreciated on the sensorial and perceptual level, but architecture can create an entire world which speaks to us on the conceptual level in terms of a fundamental sense of life. A well-designed automobile is much more limited in scope and means of expession, whereas a sculpture of a man can directly communicate metaphysical values. Architecture is the one non-representational art that is capable of the latter.

(on a sidenote, you drive a C5 Corvette, right? If so, beautiful car. Are you impressed with the design of the C6? I'm a rotary fan myself, but I've always respected the Corvette, although I doubt I'd ever buy one.)

Yes, I really enjoy my torch red C5 convertible. I think the C6 is a beautiful design and offers enough enhancements that I placed my order for one. I drove the C6 and the increased horsepower is quite noticeable, as is the cornering and general road-hugging of the larger wheel and tire sizes. The technological advances are nice, everything from the keyless entry with a starter button to the touch-screen navigation/radio controls. I wish they had made an even greater change in overall design, but I still appreciate what they did.

[Guest Kien]

This is mistaken. In her essay Art and Cognition Miss Rand identifies architecture, along with painting, literature, sculpture and music, as one of the five major branches of art. And, further, in her writings she frequently refers to architecture as art. Why would you say that she placed architecture "outside of Art?"

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I was mistaken in saying that Ayn Rand considered architecture outside of Art. Clearly she stated, in the same essay you cited, that architecture is a visual art among painting and sculpture.

My understanding and agreement with her definition of Art was the basis for what I wrote: "a selective re-creation of reality according to an artist metaphysical value" and that "Architecture does not re-create reality"; along with what she wrote in The Psycho-Epistemology of Art, that art "serves no practical material end, but is an end in itself". To me, Painting and Sculpture fall into this definition of art, a visual art; but architecture does have a practical material end and that would differentiate itself from art but still remains within a branch of philosophy called Aesthetics.

Having said that, I'm wrong to attribute something other than what she wrote about the subject of architecture as art.

Kien

[Guest Kien]

My understanding and agreement with her definition of Art was the basis for what I wrote: "a selective re-creation of reality according to an artist metaphysical value" and that "Architecture does not re-create  reality

Edit: the quote above is to be read as Miss Rand's and not mine.

[stephen_speicher]

I'm a rotary fan myself ...

I was in a rush (on my way out) when I wrote my earlier post and though I meant to, I failed to respond to this. I have a soft spot in my heart for the rotary engine, based on my escapades with an RX2 in the early 1970s. I think I wrote a little about this in another thread a while ago, but the rotary was a fun car.

[stephen_speicher]

I was mistaken in saying that Ayn Rand considered architecture outside of Art. Clearly she stated, in the same essay you cited, that architecture is a visual art among painting and sculpture.

My understanding and agreement with her definition of Art was the basis for what I wrote: "a selective re-creation of reality according to an artist metaphysical value" and that "Architecture does not re-create  reality" ...

Yes, as Ayn Rand wrote, she does put architecture into a separate class of art because it is utilitarian and it does not re-create reality. But note that, in one sense, architecture as art goes a little further and actually creates a world in which we can live, a world on such a grand scale that it becomes a statement and expression of metaphysical values. Sculpture is meant to be seen and touched from different perspectives, but architecture is meant to be walked through, to be the environment itself in which we live. In my view, this dynamic is the major source of the sense of life, metaphysical value-judgments that the architect can express and that we can directly experience.

[Concerto of Atlantis]

I was in a rush (on my way out) when I wrote my earlier post and though I meant to, I failed to respond to this. I have a soft spot in my heart for the rotary engine, based on my escapades with an RX2 in the early 1970s. I think I wrote a little about this in another thread a while ago, but the rotary was a fun car.

Very nice. The way that rotary engines rev really appeals to me. I drive a Series III RX-7, which I have big plans for over the coming couple of years. Hint: Triple Rotor Twin Turbo from the Mazda Cosmo.

I share your sentiments about the C6 Corvette. Sometimes I wish that the makers of the well-established sports cars (e.g. Corvette, 911, Skyline GT-R, etc.) would undertake more revolutionary design changes. Nonetherless, I do think the C6 is a gorgeous car. They should have kept the pop-up headlights though.

[stephen_speicher]

I share your sentiments about the C6 Corvette. Sometimes I wish that the makers of the well-established sports cars (e.g. Corvette, 911, Skyline GT-R, etc.) would undertake more revolutionary design changes.

I have never seen a Skyline in California (except in the movie). I am not that enamored by the looks. The Lotus Elise is being brought to California this year and that has an interesting look. Unfortunately, it not very fast nor is it technologically sophisticated.

Nonetherless, I do think the C6 is a gorgeous car. They should have kept the pop-up headlights though. 

I thought that too about the headlights until I looked at them close up. They really look awesome, kind of like gunnery lights. I think, for me, it will be a nice look for a change.

I also looked at the 2005 viper but it seemed to lack the sophistication of the corvette. A lot of brute power but not that much on technology. A lovely looking car, though.

[stephen_speicher]

The way that rotary engines rev really appeals to me. I drive a Series III RX-7, which I have big plans for over the coming couple of years. Hint: Triple Rotor Twin Turbo from the Mazda Cosmo.

I realize we are getting far away from Architecture here ... How much horsepower will that setup bring? Is it too much for the rest of the car?

[Concerto of Atlantis]

Oh, it's not too far from architecture, because you see, putting in a triple rotor twin turbo engine that produces around 300HP into a Series III RX-7 with no other modifications would be like... trying to build a 100-storey skyscraper out of bricks.

So yes, when I do eventually put in the engine, I will need to do quite a bit of chassis reinforcement, upgrading of brakes, suspension, tyres, etc. But old RX-7s have been raced quite extensively and done well, so the potential to turn it into a high-performance sportscar is there.

I don't regard the Skyline as being a beautiful car. But I admire it because of the principle behind it. Everything on that car is there for a single purpose - to make it go very quickly around a race-course (For proof, look at the times that it has achieved around the famous Nurburghring track in Germany - regarded as one of the most gruelling tests to put a performance car through). The GT-R is also a beautifully balanced car to drive. Its AWD system is brilliant because most of the time it drives with a RWD feel, but has the grip advantage of AWD. Its 2.6l Twin Turbo Straight Six is amazing - and has loads of tuning potential. But despite all this, yes, it's not a particularly beautiful design. It is indeed a pity.

If you found the idea behind the Lotus Elise interesting, you should check out of the Caterham Superlight R500 - http://www.seriouswheels.com/top-2004-Cate...0-Evolution.htm

Think Elise on steroids and you get the idea.

And I share your sentiments about the Dodge Viper. Unanshamedly American styling. I congratulate the designers on having the courgage to pull that off.

[stephen_speicher]

So yes, when I do eventually put in the engine, I will need to do quite a bit of chassis reinforcement, upgrading of brakes, suspension, tyres, etc. But old RX-7s have been raced quite extensively and done well, so the potential to turn it into a high-performance sportscar is there.

Then you must really love that rotary engine. By the time you are done you should have invested a goodly portion of a new vette!

If you found the idea behind the Lotus Elise interesting, you should check out of the Caterham Superlight R500 - http://www.seriouswheels.com/top-2004-Cate...0-Evolution.htm

That 0-100-0 mph figure is really incredible. Puts the supercars to shame. But 0-60 mph in 3.2 sec? Yikes. My 4.3 sec is about the limit I can handle of California streets!

[Concerto of Atlantis]

Then you must really love that rotary engine. By the time you are done you should have invested a goodly portion of a new vette!

That 0-100-0 mph figure is really incredible. Puts the supercars to shame. But 0-60  mph in 3.2 sec? Yikes. My 4.3 sec is about the limit I can handle of California streets!

... which is why if I ever owned such a car, I would probably only drive it on a track, since sticking to the speed limit would be virtually impossible.

Believe me Stephen, if I had to choose between buying a new 'Vette and modifying my RX-7, I'd take the Vette. But a Corvette would cost around $140,000 (in Australian dollars) whereas I could do everything I intend on doing to the RX-7 for around $30,000, and still have a car capable of doing 0-100km/h (and other things too, of course!) in around the 5 second mark.

[stephen_speicher]

Believe me Stephen, if I had to choose between buying a new 'Vette and modifying my RX-7, I'd take the Vette. But a Corvette would cost around $140,000 (in Australian dollars) whereas I could do everything I intend on doing to the RX-7 for around $30,000, and still have a car capable of doing 0-100km/h (and other things too, of course!) in around the 5 second mark.

The first car I owned was an old banged-up 1950 black ford that I had to enter from the passenger side since the driver's door was completely smashed. I traded up to a 1951 red Mercury convertible ( a beautiful car) which lasted the full twenty minutes it took for me to drive it near home. Then a 1949 black Chevy that knew which gas station to stop in in order to fill up the radiator so it wouldn't overheat. By the time I put together my "digital jeep" I had gone through enough clunkers to really appreciate what it meant to customize a car. So, enjoy the Mazda. I am sure you will, since there is nothing quite like putting it all together yourself.

[Concerto of Atlantis]

Thank you.

[stephen_speicher]

Thank you.

And, thank you.

[Brent Rolfe]

Believe me Stephen, if I had to choose between buying a new 'Vette and modifying my RX-7, I'd take the Vette. But a Corvette would cost around $140,000 (in Australian dollars) whereas I could do everything I intend on doing to the RX-7 for around $30,000, and still have a car capable of doing 0-100km/h (and other things too, of course!) in around the 5 second mark.

I saw an advertisement for "new" the VW Bug about a year ago.......

0-60............Yes!