...
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.