---

IS ARCHITECTURE ART?

Comment by Michael Jeffreson, first published in Architecture Australia, July/August edition, 1995.

Comments by Leon van Schaik at the recent launch of the Ruins of the Future competition[1] and subsequent comments by Peter Ward in The Australian have resurrected in a small way the debate about whether architecture is to be considered art.  Ward asserts that the whole issue is an “old ague” and quotes Elizabeth Farelly’s comments to the effect that when architects begin to talk about their ‘art’, they may be beginning to lose their way.  But the issue is of interest as a barometer of the architectural profession’s self perception.  Why do architects wish their work to be defined as art?

The obvious answer in the case of the Ruins competition is the placing of architecture as a central component in an Arts festival.  There is also a sense within the architectural community of being at the periphery of the consciousness of the arts community.  This is in some way exemplified by the representation of architecture in the daily media, floating somewhere between the home, property and urban affairs sections of the paper but rarely dignified with criticism in the arts section.

The problem in assessing architecture as art are its practical dimensions.  It has functional, technical, typological, social, site specific, professional and cost issues that rarely figure as central determinants in the making of art.  To some extent, the local architectural press has played to the arts community by treating these factors as secondary to aesthetics in the criticism of and debate about architecture.

The problem of the identity and constituency of architecture has a flip side.  By stressing the aesthetic character of architecture in its media, the profession unwittingly gives credence to the idea of the architect as building stylist, rather than the central player in the building process.  It is a no win situation for the profession, and finally compels a realization that the conception of “architecture as art” is a blind alley.  Rather than redrafting the definition of architecture to try to fill a mould it does not fit, architects need to look to the uniqueness of their cross disciplinary activity and debate and criticize it on its own terms.

The arts community may need to modify its terms of reference to understand the character of this debate.  Architects and architecture critics have frequently borrowed terminology from art criticism and literary theory that is clearly inapplicable to architecture.  For instance, the terms ‘abstract’ and ‘representational’ dominated the architectural press in the 1980s, even though architecture is inherently abstract and has nothing to do with likenesses, and post-structuralist theory made an appearance in the late 1980s, despite the unavoidable fact of architecture’s role as an instrument of social structures.  Inevitably, the architectural products of this theorizing could achieve little more than trite metaphorical links between form and idea (fragmented forms equal fragmented societies an so on).  Architectural theory may have to recover some more relevant roots, more closely related to the nature of the activity.

The partner of the ‘architecture as art’ concept is the conception of architecture as separate from mere building.  Put crudely, this doctrine implies that architecture is artistic, where mere building is not.  However a broader view of architecture would accept that a building could be typologically or technically remarkable, while being aesthetically boring.  By the same token, just as design values can be brought to the most mundane household items, design excellence can be brought to routine building types: type is not a barrier to design quality.  If architects are to be seen as potential contributors to the quality, enjoyability and usefulness of any environment, is it probably better to talk of all buildings being better or worse examples of architecture than attempt to draw an artificial distinction.

The architectural media has an important role to play in examining the broad range of issues inherent in the making of architecture.  It is the window to the professions values, and it may be that the profession has been guilty of under-investing in its media.  It is far easier for a journal with limited resources to write assessments of buildings from on the basis of a subjective analysis of its aesthetics, than to undertake the research required to offer a worthwhile typological or technical analysis.  When a journal such as Architecture Australia has not the resources to commission first class articles, nor disseminate academic research, the professions capacity to improve its collective knowledge and learn from its collective experience is severely impaired.

The reassertion of the architect as the central player in synthesizing the inputs of others in the building process also demands that the architectural media serves as an open forum for the exchange of ideas, not only those of architects but also of other building, planning and design professionals, client groups and community interests.  This kind of open dialogue assists architects in making buildings that respond to current needs and current thinking in all its related fields.  While it may seem strange to have engineers, client groups and planners writing in architecture journals, this would advance the possibilities of architecture in the broadest sense.  In the emerging, key, cross disciplinary design areas such as urban design and sustainable design, the professions are being urged to more closely integrate their activities.  The architectural media could profitably serve as the forum for this cross-disciplinary dialogue.

Is architecture art?  Certainly, as much as it is a profession, craft or science.  As buildings and their methods of procurement become more sophisticated and complex, the architecture-as-art mindset needs to be set aside and the uniqueness and complexity inherent in the making of architecture asserted on its own terms.