In the Renaissance, there was a lively debate among artists and critics over which art form was the best. Cases were made for and against painting, sculpture, poetry, and music. To my mind, the debate is philosophically silly, but it is a fun and instructive exercise to compare the strengths and limitations of each art form.
So in that spirit, here is the first entry in a series — the case for architecture made by a representative 17th-century character:
“Architecture embraces the other disciplines. It combines the severity of the law with the fascination of anatomy, the joy of poetry, the mystery of astronomy and the intellectual stimulus of philosophy. When you add the iron logic of mathematics, you have a profession which outstrips all others. An architect is at once an artist and a scientist. What could be nobler?”
[Source: Edward Marston, character Christopher Redmayne speaking, The King’s Evil, p. 39.]
Whereas connection between anatomy and painting/sculpture is very strong and very real, with architecture, the connection to anatomy, poetry, astronomy, and philosophy are really quite distant and only vaguely related. Mathematics is indeed necessary for structural engineering, sustainability, and other areas. But I think it is bizarre to justify the greatness of a discipline by remote association with other great disciplines. It is most connected, in my mind, with other design arts such as furniture, industrial design, landscape arch, even graphic design, all in which the art form is judged by its ability to satisfy functional criteria in the real world as well as its psychological aesthetic value. Of the design arts, architecture & landscape arch. create whole designed worlds to inhabit, which makes it a more potent force, in my mind, than its relatives. But indeed a philosophically silly discussion!
Reply