architecture, not art

******
"The pendulum swinging between architects seeing themselves as artists or as technicians exacts a high price on the profession. Architects do architecture, which is a very complex thing in itself."
-- Rafael Vinoly
******

i used to believe architecture is the blend of art and science.
then i believe it is social science.

... maybe architecture contains more?

but i get more and more convinced that architecture is not art, or, should not be art.
because art should never consider functions. and i can't find an example of architecture or buildings that may ignore functions.

well, but architects like to claim that they are artists, as though this adds value to their works.
but the true value of a work is not claimed. as i always say: you can claim; you can deny; you can change people's impression; but, you can't change the fact.

you can disguise as though the sun rises from the north, but you can't change the fact that it rises from the east.

trying to make something beautiful is crafting.
arts <> crafts.

yes, arts is unequal to crafts, which means arts may be more than crafts, may also be less than crafts, but arts is never crafts.

btw, you can put art pieces into an architecture, but this won't make the building a art piece, as if an art museum is not a art piece. it's merely a container.

========
architecture is container, not art
sap 02.09.2010