Is architecture science, engineering, or art?

...

It has some artistic merit. Sadly, some architects start to think too highly of themselves and forget that, first and foremost, a building's main purpose is functionality.

Over here in the Netherlands, the national museum of natural history (Naturalis) is in a shitty position due to the architect crying about "muh art is getting ruined". Why? Because one of their older buildings, designed by him, is getting a minor change: one of the floors is getting changed so there is no longer a big hole looking down to the ground levels (can't think of what it's called, but you get the idea). The building is now getting repurposed as an archive, which is why they want to get more space in the building by actually making the floor a proper floor.

Now the architect is throwing a bitchfit because his "art" is getting ruined. The judge ruled that the architect is in the right (as according to law).
To add insult to injury, the building has to be the most generic shit I have ever seen. Pic related.

Architecture may be considered art, but it's function first and art second.

it's a long process to get fully RIBA qualified in the UK at least. I think it involves a bit of all of those plus some law related stuff. It's more art than anything else though.

Good architecture is both functional and beautiful. Architecture that emphasizes solely the former is mediocre and demeaning to the human spirit, and structures that focus on the latter are frivolous and wasteful.

Quite, but the example I gave isn't ruining any beauty. I do not mean that in a subjective way (i.e. I'm not calling the building shit), I mean it in the sense that it barely changes a damn thing about it other than repurposing the building's function.

If I had to guess why the architect is throwing such a bitchfit:
The main collections are getting moved to a different building/wing of Naturalis, meaning the building he designed gets less attention.
Or maybe he just wants to milk some shekels. Wouldn't be the first time some artist tried that shit in the Netherlands and got away with it

The only thing that architect will achieve is another clause for the contract negotiations about who owns the right to the structure's appearance.

In my job I have learned that architecture is mostly art. The science and engineering happens by one of the (sub)contractors who eventually builds the thing.

Whoever made this image is severely lacking in understanding of basic plant care.

Yep

What I don't get is why, when we have the technology to create literal fantasy cities, do we instead choose to build the most boring asinine shit.

Like if artists and architects were actively trying to build dream in reality I'd consider art a pretty noble thing, but instead we get slightly wonky cube #72.

Who will pay for your shitty "artistic" dreamworld?

Most people settle with functional decent looking building and don't want to pay extra taxes just for some kind of dream world.

the separation of art/engineering/science is a disease on the modern education system. they all use the same human ingenuity. the greek word 'technic,' origin of 'technique' was applied equally to scientific and artistic endeavors. at one point there was hardly a distinction between the artist and the artisan.

bunch of stemlord bullshit. majoring in engineering or science doesn't disqualify you from developing an aesthetic practice. it demands it.

Aesthetic architecture always draws tourism, and just generally makes life better. Taj Mahal is a good example and alone brings in over 3
million dollars a year for just existing. I have no doubt that a healthy culture of producing aesthetically pleasing and idealized architecture would pay for itself in the long run.

Look at the beautiful aesthetics of south American cities like cartagena or Italian villages like Atrani. And the massive revenue they recieve from tourism. Millions of people who pay thousands to fly to these places just to look at them for a week.

And Honestly who gives a fuck about the price of living somewhere that gorgeous? Life is short. You can spend your life around beautiful human things or you can spend your life in a particle board hellhole that's "functional" and cheap. Or continue with what we have now in most
modern cities which is a grab bag of functional garbage, and unlivable and unbelievably expensive "artistic" garbage. Smashed together into incoherent nonsense.

The Taj Mahal also represents a lifetime (adjusted for inflation) investment of $10 billion dollars over the past 400 years. That structure isn't paying for itself by existing. Monumental architecture is staggeringly expensive.

Yeah. It tends to only be done by neurotic people obsessed with a particular women or God they want to worship

That being said, these things are culturally significant and should be made more often

We could recreate the Taj Mahal nowadays way cheaper probably, with synthetic materials that look the same and probably last longer

From a former such stemlord, cheers.

It's a combination of the three, but it's more an art thing than anything else. Just ask any architect, they're going to tell you this. They don't like being compared to engineers and they are not exactly scientists.

All three.

Civil engineering puts function first, architectures puts art first and it should remain as such, building should be a kind of competition between the two sides otherwise if you let only one side get their way you either end up with depressing commie blocks or dysfunctional modern "art" buildings.

Good science is good art

>who gives a fuck about the price of living somewhere that gorgeous
Most people lmao. Get out of your fantasy world user

>And Honestly who gives a fuck about the price of living somewhere that gorgeous? Life is short.
Maybe people who don't have a lot to spare and don't want their tax dollaridoos used for something like that?

>can't think of what it's called
Maybe balcony, loft, mezzanine, gallery, landing (in the US)....

It's a business. Now you know why contemporary architecture sucks.

It's a mix of engineering and art. On the one hand, a good architect needs to be able to keep the building they're making to be functional for the purpose it's designed. On the other hand, they also should be able to make it aesthetically pleasing, as that's something that can sell buildings.

Is sirugleblap a glorf, smark or fruglor?

Architecture is a made up concept, just like the distinctions between science, engineering and art. It happens to be a fringe case where those categories appear to overlap, and as such is great for trolling people who believe rigid man-made definitions carry any real significance.