1996_1 |
'Some Remarks on Practical Aesthetics' in Architecture
1/ In this text I shall deal with the question of the
relationship between art and everyday life in architecture. This subject has been
discussed for over a century. During this time two positions werw established: the
`artist' who thinks of architecture as art, and the `functionalist' who considers
architecture a means of satisfying the everyday needs of the people.
I will start my talk with a general summary of the arguments for and against both
positions. Then - and this is my main issue - I will make an attempt to establish a
phenomenological and aesthetic foundation for practical aesthetics, in which both function
and art come together. In the phenomenological part I have based my thoughts mainly on
those of Merleau-Ponty, a french phenomenologist from the middle of this century and
Bernhard Waldenfels, a present day german philosopher.
In the aesthetic part I look back to Vitruvius and into the history of aesthetics during
the 18th century.
2/ I have already mentioned that the discussion within the
field of architecture with respect to art and the everyday being autonomous or
interrelated is over a century old.
The arguments are complicated and the historcal course of the discussion is a maze because
this `querelle' is not an academic discourse but a political struggle about true humanity
and about market dominating.
Let me attempt to summarize the respective positions in two sentences:
- The `artists' consider architecture art, which they believe to be divorced from
everyday life. Art could exist only in a pure atmosphere. The producing artist and the
perceiving aesthet are supposed to be distanced to the everyday. According to popular
opinion among `artists' `functionalists' were believed to be barbarian materialists, if
not even bolshevists (during the second and third decade of this century) or totalitarian
fascists (postmodern thinking), who refuse all spirituality and intellectuality.
- According to the `functionalists' `artists' were considered to be totalitarian
and elitarian criminals (Loos). They were playing formal games and producing intellectual
rubbish and failed to satisfy the basic needs of the people, wasting the essential
resources.
The `functionalists' reject art in general, as does the tradition of the iconoclasts. They
themselves consider architecture a means of satisfying the personal and social needs of
people. The artist should not escape from reality and isolate himself in an ivory tower.
His duty is to be involved in the everyday and try to improve it.
3/ With my remarks on `practical aesthetics' I intend to
fundamentally question these restricting definitions of art and the everyday
Firstly, and this is common academic knowledge, the `functionalists' don't
understand what art is. But - what is most important for me - they also have a restricted
view of the everyday.
And secondly, as we are also aware of, the `artists' are not experts on the
everyday. Furthermore and surprisingly enough, they have a restricted understanding of art.
Contents
-
1. Miss Sugarcate
A. Materiality
B. Embodiment and the phenomenal world
C. Senses and cognitions and the intellectual world
2. Interactions between men and the things
A. Objects lurk
B. To dwell in being
C. The polyverse
D. Architecture as a game
E. Engagement and mental distance
1. Vitruvius 2. The development of a pure aesthetics in architecture 3. Shaftesbury 4.
Beauty and art in architecture A. What makes architecture beautiful? B. What makes
architecture art?
-
|