Annora Spence - 'Musician and Cat'

What is Art?

On August 17, 2010, in Life in General, Observations, by Bob Borson

Art can truly be judged by you, the individual, as far as you yourself are concerned, by only one measure. It is not a static but an energy measure. Do not ask what the art is or ought to be, for this is debatable and will inevitably lead to endless argument. Ask only what is does – not what it does to somebody else, for this again is only hearsay, but what it does to you. No matter how good a painting may be by any and all theoretical esthetic standards, if it does not do something special to you, Mr. John Doe, then it means about as much to you as a rumor of a love affair on Mars heard in a convention of Psychologists. – Norwood MacGilvary in the article ‘Art and John Doe’, originally published in Pittsburgh Architectural Club’s ‘The Charette’ with excerpt’s reprinted in The Architectural Forum, May 1939

.

Caravaggio - Supper at Emmaus

The quote from above threw a log on a fire that has been burning in my head for years (despite the apparent lack of fuel, but on the other hand, lots of space). It’s a straight-forward question and one that almost everyone disagrees with me on…

.

Can architecture be considered art?

.

Walter de Maria - 'The Lightning Field'

First off, let me say that architects are not artists, at least not in the traditional meaning of the word. Architects can be artistic but what we make has to conform to standards and measures established by regulatory entities and it has be evaluated in it’s ability to perform a specific job. The reason why architects have to be licensed to practice architecture is because we are legally held responsible in that our work is to insure the health, safety and welfare of the general public. The title of ‘artist’ carries no similar amount of responsibility to the public at large. As a result, the work architects do can look great and have sculptural qualities but it transcends the label that defines art. Conversely, anything can be artful or artistic but that does not make it art either. Case in point: Seen a Jiffy Lube lately? It’s scope may be defined by the requirements of protecting the health, safety and welfare of the general public but I feel fairly protected from ridicule in that they have never been considered the fruit of an artistic endeavor.

I know that I may have a fairly narrow definition of what is or isn’t art so I asked a bunch of people to tell me what their favorite piece of art was. I didn’t ask for their favorite painting or sculpture intentionally; this was part of my study – what do other people think of when asked to define art. What you see here in this post are some of the responses.

.

Lyonel Feininger- 'The Green Bridge II'

Almost everyone who added some text to their submission spoke to how their selection made them feel - which at worst is an ethereal quality that can only be described between people and never physically shared. I’m okay with that because I think art is a personal experience and since I have matured (debatable), I am not heavily influenced in what I like by the opinions of others – only I can determine if I like something or not. I believe that for art to actually be art, it has to accomplish a few things – the least of which is to demonstrate craft and skill in it’s creation. If I look at something and the first thought that comes to my mind is “I could make that” … that is an ‘X’ … in a bad way. I like my art to be “professional” because between me and my daughter, I am up to my ears in amateur art. I want my art to represent skill acquired by practice, experience, observation, consideration, and study. I don’t necessarily need it to mean anything because that’s what I bring to the mix.

.

St Peters Bascillica

.

Picasso - Guernica

.

Annora Spence - 'Musician and Cat'

Some people might find this hard to believe but I hate watching the local news. I seek my news out through broader channels because the local stuff tends to focus only on the sensational. There is so much bad in this world, I don’t need to invite it into my house. The painting above – ‘Musician and Cat’ – that one’s mine and so is the Caravaggio. I actually have the ‘Musician and Cat’ in my house and I flew to London to get it (that is a great story that I will share if I ever meet you). I look at it and it makes me happy and honestly … I need all of that kind of art I can get.

.

Michelango Buonarroti - 'The Awakening Slave'

.

Bilbao Guggenheim Museum

The Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao is about as close to sculpture as a building can be – but to me it’s not art. It’s a fantastic building but there are other things in play that allow me to judge this place. There was great artistic skill needed to create a building and a space such as this but it took an army of people to execute the design – not just one person. That is another distinction that separates art from the artistic – singular vision along with the individual message from the creator. I still don’t think I’ve ever heard an artist explain their creation with “because I thought it would look good”. Of course they thought it would look good but there’s a meaning somewhere even if they never explain it to anyone – which is okay because you don’t have to know why a thing is the way it is to like it … but it helps.

.

Mark Rothko - 'No. 10'

.

Keller Freres - 'Wine or water pitcher'

.

Greene & Greene - 'The Blacker House'

.

Salvador Dali - 'Christ of St. John of the Cross'

.

Claes Oldenburg - 'Split Button'

.

Picasso -

.

I would like to thank some of my friends who took the time and responded with their favorite piece of art (or at least one they liked enough to tell me). If you sent me a suggestion and I didn’t use it, I apologize, I was hoping for 10 suggestions and I received about 30 (surprisingly, there was not one repeat in the entire bunch).

  • @paul_anater
  • @ecomod
  • @threefourteen
  • @splintergirl
  • @mintvintage
  • @GownaIron
  • @DesignStudio26
  • @greenrascal
  • @torch02

You may or may not agree with me, that’s okay, that’s actually important. This turned out to be a difficult post for me to write because some sort of back and forth dialog is needed to allow this currently one-sided conversation to go somewhere. I am not on a soap box here as a pundit but rather reaching out to others to pull them up here with me.

About the author

Bob Borson

Dallas architect who specializes in modern design. I'm AIA, Leed AP, NCARB certified, and previous Dallas AIA Young Architect of the Year (2009).

Visit Authors Website

If you enjoyed this article, please consider sharing it!

Tagged with:  

  • Raul

    Liked your post, althoug it is dificult to me to chose a favourite art piece, since I, to, allwais tried to live sorronded by art. I´m quite “ecletic”. I have my tastes, that’s all. i enjoy paryticularly the works that strech de limits and tensions between “reason” and “expression”. Like the most expressive artists from the Bauhaus, like Kandinsky and klee, love Maneirism, buonarroti in special, like the gothic, and i’m an incondicional fan off Le courbusier… – but there lots of tings, bettew music, photography, even literature (ah, Joyce…). there is that thing from Nietzche, the origin of tragedy… – sure he knew what I mean. Off course, architecture is not striktly art… – buta what do you think of Gaudi?

    (mind my bad English – i´m a bit lazy to revise)

  • http://urbanverse.posterous.com Cindy Frewen Wuellner

    Bob: I love this idea, and you made a reasonable argument. Its a bit like thinking about the difference between art and design. Design has more utility and function, while art is for expression of ideas. Artists have the weighty task of relevance with very few avenues for being relevant. Buildings are relevant in terms of use, and sometimes omit expression. We forget that the buildings we create have meaning. for me, more than beauty, art is the expression of meaning. which can be very beautiful!

    The part of architecture that expresses ideas is artful, I think, not pure art. Not art for art’s sake. And I do believe in the art of architecture. Entering Corbu’s Notre dam du Haute, Holl’s Nelson Museum addition, or Moneo’s Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels are full immersion art similar to Serra’s work. Its not purely object sculptural art, it’s experienced art.

    In a narrow definition, architecture is not art. In a broad definition, it is.

    ok, that was fun, thanks, Bob.

    cindy @urbanverse

  • Anonymous

    I couldn’t make the argument between art and design – but I still think that art is it’s own category as is architecture. They share similarities and can evoke emotional responses from the people who view and interact with them but they are separate and distinct from one another. this might be the most important line in my post:

    “singular vision along with the individual message from the creator”

    Thank you for taking the time to comment

  • http://archiceptual.wordpress.com/ Archiceptual

    Yes, Architecture IS Art and Architects ARE Artists.

    When I think of art I think of something that evokes emotion by means of personal expression. Painting, music, dance, architecture, writing, sculpture and graphic design, to list a few, are all forms of art.

    Architecture is created by means of form, light, color, tecture and movement much like a painting is comprised. Unlike a painting, it can also touch the senses of sound, smell and even taste. As well as creating a sense of place.

    Architecture is of couse subjective, as is any form of art, and is determined, ridiculed and catergorized through the eye of the beholder. Personal taste, experiences, familiarity, your overall feelings. How does that painting make you feel? How does the space you are in right now make you feel? Has the artist made an impression on you? Yes, even when you don’t think about it, it has indeed.

    Architects are absolutely required to conform to standards and measures established by regulatory entities to protect the health, safety and welfare of the general public. Naturally, this has been a stumbling block and challenge for Architects worldwide, yet the personal expression and artistic appeal is really not lost.

    Most would agree that Jiffy Lube is not a great example of Art or Architecture. I think the Architect would probably agree. This type of architecure (used lightly of course) is more a result of its function and more importantly, its retail branding. Without the brand, without the familiarity, without the sense of place in our communities, you have no Jiffy Lube. Branding is what it’s all about in the retail marketplace. How many of you could point out a Starbucks, a Dunkin Donuts, a Bank of America, or a Crispy Creme even if the signage was not installed?

    This is just my take as an Architect and how I feel about Art and Architecture. I believe other types of designers could also make similar arguements. Look at automotive design, furniture design and even faucet design, for examples. All evoking emotion. Consider ‘Brizo’ Faucets, for example. They have coupled faucet design with runway fashion. It’s a genious concept, it’s beautiful and the designers, in my mind, are artists!

    Archiceptual

  • http://stuff2eat.blogspot.com Lori Jablons

    Bob, this is an excellent post. I’m gonna tape that MacGilvary quote to my desk.

    I agree with so much of what you said, save for architects not being artists. Artists have to dream things up. So do architects. Like you, I don’t let anyone influence my opinion of what I perceive as art or what I like. When I experience a piece of art–photograph, painting, sculpture, collage, film, song, building, pizza–I want two things. I want to be moved by it and I want to learn something from it. I’m not a fan of most contemporary art, but I found both the Rothko and Dali pieces, above, moving and I learned something more about color (Rothko) and light (Dali). So, I’d have to consider both pieces art.

    There is so much beauty in the world around us (despite what the news spews), I think there’s art all around us. We just need to be able to see it.

    Keep this conversation going!

  • Anonymous

    Hi Lori, a couple of things:

    Isn’t that MacGilvary quote the most complicated sentence ever for the payoff? Wow – but I still like it. And I agree that you can interpret almost anything you see into something that can be defined as art – that’s what makes art … art.

  • Anonymous

    For me, your definition of art is so loose that just about anything that exists and bends light qualifies as art and I just don’t see it that way.

    I don’t think I was clear when said architects aren’t artists. Architects can also be artists but the words are mutually interchangeable – two different things – just because you are an architect (and an artistic one at that) does not mean you are making art. It’s more than art – it has a job to do which infers measurable criteria. Architecture is more than art (not more important, just more) and so the traditional label of art doesn’t work – that’s what makes it artistic, it shares characteristics with art but technically speaking – it isn’t art unless you reduce them from their full scope into something else.

  • http://archiceptual.wordpress.com Archiceptual

    I believe your initial statement of my definition is a bit of an exaggeration, but I do believe that art surrounds all of us in much of our daily lives. Our opinions, our experiences and our thoughts are what makes us individuals Bob. I love this post because it evokes many emotions and gets us all thinking.

    thanks for sharing
    Archiceptual

  • http://stuff2eat.blogspot.com Lori Jablons

    Yes, you’re right about the sentence. That said, if I were editing it, I wouldn’t change a bloody thing! Also, having photographed and spent significant time on the Brooklyn Bridge, walking and thinking, I’d have to say that is my favorite work of art. Just sayin’. :)

  • http://twitter.com/ExtremelyAvg Brian Meeks

    I love art. This post was fantastic and I think the people who contributed were right on the mark. I found all the pictures to be wonderful.

  • http://www.coffeewithanarchitect.com Jody Brown

    I’d define Art as a work that evokes an emotional response from us. So, Yes, Architeture can be Art. It’s usually not, but it can be. And, I don’t think layering in function, code, health, safety, etc. negates possibility of Art. It just makes it more difficult to acheive.

    Nice Post Bob!

  • Anonymous

    Think how hard it was to pick the ones that made the post. I had so many great people send in their choices. I was actually expecting to get some more buildings submitted as a favorite piece of art but only 3 total (approx. 10%) and no wood pieces.

    Maybe a nice box?

  • Anonymous

    Your last two sentences present possibly the strongest argument for why architecture should be considered art but…. singular vision along with the individual message from the creator is an important distinction between art and architecture. Sure, there have been commissioned art pieces over the years but the freedom of direction and how to achieve the end product still necessitate the difference between Architecture and Art and as a result, it is impossible to separate out the requirements from the function of architecture thereby limiting what the person experiencing a building brings to the experience – quite different than how one view, experiences and interprets ‘art’.

  • http://www.kitchenandresidentialdesign.com Paul Anater

    Bob,

    Terrific post and thanks for the excuse to take a few moments and muse over something as ephemeral as art on a Tuesday afternoon. When I think of the difference between art and design (I’m including architecture in design) I think of a venn diagram. That’s two circles that overlap in the center. One circle’s called art and the other design. The two circles overlap in the center and it’s in that center that things get to be both art AND design. There’s a grey area between the two extremes and I have a much larger grey area than a lot of people do. Art lives in intention and execution and so does design. Sometimes it can be hard to tell the difference between the two and the question I keep coming back to is “Does it really matter?” I say no, it’s not the definition that has meaning, it’s the effect a given object has on both the creator and on the viewer.

  • http://www.coffeewithanarchitect.com Jody Brown

    I would suggest that the people creating the work have no control over whether that work is “Art” or not. Architecture “may” be Art. But, we don’t get to decide that. I think “Art” is defined by those who view it and are moved by it. (The public, or individuals). Why is a grecian urn in a museum considered Art? Or a chair? They were functional objects from everyday life. But, we decided they were Art, because they moved us. I think the best artists stop worrying about their work. They just create what’s meaningful to them (or their clients) And send it out there to be enjoyed or scoffed at by the public. Usually, the best stuff tends to rise to the top of the field.

  • Archiceptual

    Excellent point Jody and well said!
    Archiceptual

  • Archiceptual

    I like your last sentence Paul and something to really think about

  • Anonymous

    Booooooo…

    Design is not the same as Architecture – a distinction I am dearly trying to make. You should know that as an all-around super guy AND architect, I want to have a reason for things being the way they are or at least think the creator had a reason (no channeling Brother Unicorn on this one for me please).

    It does not matter – sort of the point of the extremely convoluted yet delightful MacGilvary quote at the beginning (my trap door in case things got ugly today).

    All this being accepted as true – Where does artistic reside?

  • http://www.wood-and-light.com David Mathias

    Interesting post Bob. And great conversation. I fall into the “Architecture can be art” camp. I understand that first and foremost buildings must serve a purpose, that they can’t be art for art’s sake. However, I am not troubled by that. Much art served a purpose. At some times in history, nearly all art served a purpose. Nor am I convinced by the fact that architects almost always have a client whom they must please. Many great artists have had patrons to please and for whom they had to paint/compose/sculpt on command.

    For me, the real problem is in defining what constitutes art. I’ve thought about this but have never settled on an answer. Today I was at an art museum. One installation consisted of 5 rings of colored sand and a video of dancers dancing in, on and around the rings, blurring them in the process. Is that art? I don’t “get it” but I’m not prepared to exclude it. I know many people don’t appreciate Jackson Pollack but I love his work. The point is that art is a tough concept to pin down. I’m not telling you anything you don’t know, simply working through thoughts.

  • http://funandfit.org Alexandrafunfit

    I want that Green and Greene house. It is gorgeous. And you never asked ME for my favorite work of art. Harumph.

  • Morgan Robert Murphy

    Bob,

    First, I have to completely disagree with your proposed idea, “let me say architects are not artist.” In rebuttal I ask this, why can’t one who defines himself on a professional degree as an Architect not be considered an Artist as well? We all describe and define ourselves in many ways which is linked to multiple aspects of our lives. Take paintings created by Architects, Santiago Calatrava or Le Corbusier into mind, and I am not alluding to water colored diagrams or architectural drawings. I am alluding to specific works of art created by these Architects. In that moment those individuals are professionally defined as Architects, but they are embodying the mind of an Artist. Creating something pure and free from constraint, except the constraint and limitation provided by their own mind. This process must be considered a pure form of Art. I have to believe this act alone defines them as Artists as well as Architects.

    I complete agree with your proposed belief, that Architecture, or Architecture representing a process of creation, can not and must not be considered an art form. The limitations, guidelines, design strategies and factors in place during the creation process prevents the structure from ever even becoming a work of art as a whole, to the same effect of that of a painting or sculpture. This is due to the lack of allowing the creators artistic inception to be fully develop from its origin due to these constraints. As I mentioned in my earlier argument, when the ‘maker/artist’ is creating something he/she envisions as art, one is typically driven by that artistic inception, and typically the final work is not influenced by any limitations and guidelines, except the ones present in their own mind. I believe this is where an architectural structure looses its identity as an art or art form (que jiffly lube reference).

    Although, with that said I DO believe that art can be found in Architecture everyday. I believe in Architecture the Art form lies within. To be able to understand where I am coming from we must ask ourselves a bigger question (the title of your post), “What is Art?” As we know Art lacks a standard definition like one applied to a fundamental process like Architecture. But essentially Art is identified as almost anything which evokes emotion in each and every one of us differently. An idea which is only human. Art is defined by that single inception, the begging of an idea developed by the creator, driven and limited only by his/her most human emotions and qualities. Love, hate, lust, desire, anger, etc. It is created though the stimulation of the endless mind. ART IS, what ART DOES! (that is so cool!) It is and can be a pure expression of something greater, something which defines our very existence.

    To attempt to tie this all together I will quote Sullivan, “God is in the details,” and Wright, “I spell GOD, N-A-T-U-R-E.” Art which I already described as a pure expression of human nature which directly affects the emotions of other human beings directly or indirectly, which were arguably created by (another topic of debate) “The Creator,” or “God,” or whatever you may believe. We must ask ourselves once again can Architecture be considered Art? Imagine yourself in the last architectural space which evoked you emotionally? Now compare that to the last time you saw something you consider Art which also evoked you emotionally? Is there a difference, and according to
    MacGilvary, doesn’t this mean Art is present if there is a connect between the two situations?

    Try and remember back to the first time you saw sunlight light move down a perfectly cast concrete wall (if that is your sort of architectural fetish, anyway). I can remember the line of light intersecting the floor and effortlessly running along, joining the two masses together in perfect unity.

    For me, my mind wanders with endless experience of emotion evoked by space and structure. As I attempt to connect these odd ends of banter I find myself looking for Art IN Architecture everyday. The fact is that sound architectural design can not be Art, it must be approached as melting pot of science, mathematics, guided inception, successful strategy and planning. I believe as an Architect one must strive and utilize the fundamentals in place such as the simplicity and modularity features provided by a grid system which can be developed and fortified by elegance and formality hidden in (drumroll)… the details. At the same time I must believe that the Art in Architecture lies within, just as it lies within each one of us, hiding amongst us in the nooks and crevices, in the subtleties and the nuances, in the connection of materials, in the history and influences of human experiences, in well (I am redundant as hell but here it goes)… the details.

    Morgan Robert Murphy

    PS. Wonderful post, you are tremendous at creating points of discussion, please keep it up!

  • Anonymous

    MRMurphy,

    Thank you for taking the time to write such a considered response. Truth is, I do think that architects can be artists but … being an architect doesn’t make you an artist – I suppose that is a point I should make more clear.

    Other than that, I don’t disagree with anything you wrote (maybe I should have you prepare a guest post for me one of these days)

  • Morgan Robert Murphy

    Bob,

    I agree, it is a topic that can be discussed for days, hence the flowing passion I unleashed into the keys of my mac earlier. As a student of Architecture who attends an Institution which identifies it self as a School for Art and Design, this conversation comes to light often. I have considered myself an artist since birth, yet I have opened myself to the world of Architecture and design. So as life goes on I will be constantly facing the am I an Architect? or am I an Artist? or am I a Designer? debate in my own mind, searching for some sort Limbo between the three, if that is possible? Hopefully I can get out alive!

    MRM

  • http://www.wood-and-light.com David Mathias

    Alexandra – The Greenes considered the Blacker house to be their masterpiece. It isn’t difficult to see why, particularly when you see the interior. It is 12,000 sf of nirvana. I blogged about the house on July 23 and July 26.

  • Jonathan

    Bob,

    I suppose I haven’t thought if it quite from that angle. I tend to believe art, true art, to be an entirely subjective phenomenon that is really just an abstraction. This abstraction then, can be applied to any number of things one would expect to be artistic like painting, sculpture and architecture, to mundane things like trash or tool sheds. It takes a certain level of comprehension in which meaning is created and valued.

    For example, it is widely held by many programmers familiar with the coding that went into the early Atari games, that the subtle level of craft that went into their creation is considered art, but n00bs like myself haven’t the comprehension. Value, then, I suppose I could be liken to the concept of “hallowed ground”. Places that have seen great carnage, or are the resting place of people or have simply been inhabited for a great while are often considered to have something of the sacred in them. You can’t define this sanctity objectively, but we observe it as a truth.

    My point then would be to argue that anything may, or may not, have artistic value imbued within it, and such is entirely subjective. Personally, I really like my deck. I love the way I designed it, the way I built it, the way circulation patterns create spaces, the manner in which plants adorn it, but the people that buy our house after us may tear it up. It has artistic value to me, so I consider it art, but it may have none of that value to them.

    Everything has the potential to be art.

    Jonathan
    @mondo_tiki_man

  • http://www.eco-modernism.com Becky Shankle

    Without getting into the debate about whether architects/architecture are artists/is art, I wanted to share an insight I had while transitioning from space design to web design & back.

    There’s no difference between designing a building and designing a website. There are entries with directories & directional cues to both. There are complex hidden support systems for both. There is compliance to rules by both. There is maintenance to both, & lots of other parallels.

    In my opinion, architecture is not a term that is limited to space design. Rather, architecture is about relationships of systems. Systems, being any combination of these components: people, mechanical, structural, protocol, materials, flow, processes, etc etc etc.

    To me, by that definition, the practice of architecture applies to all design, whether it is software, a culinary concoction, choreography or a building.

    That being said, I think of ‘Art’ (as a product of a conventionally regarded artist) as a subjective perception/interpretation/emotive seeking effort, as opposed to something that solves a problem, which I think of as ‘Design’.

    But I also think that the practice of doing something well can be called An Art, architecture being no exception. I haven’t decided yet whether Design = Architecture. I think Design is a general term & architecture (and a billion other calculated manmade things) is a product of it.

    I think alcohol would help with this discussion. :D

  • http://www.eco-modernism.com Becky Shankle

    delete this comment from me por favor!

  • Pingback: The Weekly LOdown | The LOdown

  • Anolivier91

     is art the product of a singular genuis or the combination of many elements to create something new?
    Architecture aside like for paintings and creating new art…

  • Roger

    To my understanding, Architecture “IS” Art. with out the element of Art within the concept of the space,…It is merely a building, which rerquires only the scientific element to execute.