architecture vs sculpture

ON "Principles of Architectural History", Paul Frankl states that "People are part of architecture", and "this too distinguishes architecture from both painting and sculpture, from we do not stand in front of a building but are surrounded by it. "(P159) Later, he added:" a painting can be interpreted and brought to life again, because the figures remain in it always. a building dies as soon as the life within it has vanished, even if we know the custom of the people who once belonged to it."
I think Prankl brings an interesting question to us: how do we distinguish a sculpture and an architecture, if the size is not a matter?
On "The Essence of Architectural Creation", the author brings a defination of an architecture. "Our sense of space and spatial imagination press toward spatial creation; they seek their satisfaction in art. We call this art architecture; in plain words, it is the creatress of space"(P287)
Before this class, i don't really think about architectures or sculptures. I did some installations but I am not sure if they were "sculptures"? And, how to distinguish an installation and a sculpture? I think with sculpture, you create a form from the same medium. either you take away from the medium, as in a block of stone, or you collect together pieces of the medium, as can be done in clay or glass. But architecture is different. The result of architecture is a collection of different materials. An architecture is a system that connecting disjoint things in useful ways.

Kinesthetic construct of the vertical and the horizontal

Last week's reading of Hildebrand's visual-kinesthetic in sculpture leads us into this week's reading of "The Essence of Architectural Creation" by Schmarsow. By taking a classicist approach (which Frankl also does as well), Schmarsow states that there are 2 preconditions for spatial constructs: 1) the external stimuli and 2) the predisposition to the intuited form [Anschauungsform].

The "external stimuli" is the reason why we have such constructs such as this:



and this:



which are basically the "human need for protection against the hardships of the exernal world" and are thus "only the contingent cause" (p. 286).

It is the "intuited form" derived from our innate desire for symmetry and harmonizing the individual parts to each other as well as to the whole that compels humans to "press toward spatial creation [Raumgestaltung]" (p. 287). Here is part of that word from last week - gestalt. Embodying the "whole".

This is what differentiates the Caribbean huts from what Schmarsow calls "art architecture" or "creatress of space".

This creatress of space, in accordance with the ideal forms of the human intuition of space, begins with the "axial system" of the verticals and horizontals. Thus, it is not just the construct but the ideals of the line that provides the meaning or the essence of space.

It was hardly any coincidence the basilica plan was adopted for early Christian churches. Constantine (as well as his retinue of builders) knew what he was doing when he took a site from the periphery (outside city walls) and made it a central sacred space using the idiom of Rome's imperial and glorious past.



The eye, guided by the kinesthetic vision, is directed toward the apse.

It was only due time before architects managed to unify the horizontal with the vertical in Hagia Sophia to privilege the upward gaze that aligned perfectly with their religious doctrine.



Space will never cease to be static as long as our kinesthetic sensations are transferred to the spatial form.

Julie

Can achitecture be conceptual? Is architecture art? I would have to say yes to both questions. Not all buildings are monumental works of art, some are just simple shelters. In fact the only unifying element is the space these different structures create.  Through out history many buildings were erected with conceptual intentions. For instance Gothic cathedrals have many parts to them that have meaning. The rose window, usually on the front facade of a cathedral is supposed to be an eye to god, the heavens. But as Schmarsow stats, "Social and ideological considerations shape the building", so the iconical and structural plans of cathedrals were catered to the patron, who were often the clerical hierarchy. One has to tap into their creative aptitude in order to design monumental architectural feats. Which in turn allows me to call architecture art.

Santiago Calatrava, who is a modern architect makes use of conceptual ideas in his structures.  He also designs other structures such as Bridges, which makes me wounder if Schmarsow would call it architecture, because he only refers to is as something that creates space. "Spatial creation as

 the essence of architecture".  Briges take up space, they span a distance but they don't necessarily create a enclosure.    

I don't agree with all of Schmarsow's theories either.  He says that space can only be created and experienced in architecture. What about large scale sculptures? They often create space. He also says the architecture is also functional art. Yes, I agree but would that make pottery architecture? It creates a space and can also be functional.  In that case I guess I could call my self and architect!