The relationship between art and architecture is one that has fascinated designers and artists for centuries. The balance can be hard to get right, and the process can be a challenging one. There has been debated for decades about whether architecture is art – with some passionately arguing that architecture is a form of self-expression and therefore an art form, and others decrying the notion, viewing it as a form of egotism which leads to ‘starchitect’ designs being parachuted into place without reference to social and geographic context or appropriateness.
Interpreting Architecture as a Form of Artistry
The fusion of art and architecture can transcend the sum of its parts, but can also go incredibly wrong. Getting the balance right is, it can be argued, an art form in itself. The building designer has to have the skill and creative talent to envisage what the end result will be and how it will be interpreted by the people who see it.
Countless examples throughout history show that built environments can be made extraordinary by the well-judged use of beautiful and interesting art, to popular acclaim. What is most important is that the resulting combination achieve something which, in the eyes of most people, makes a place somewhere they visually enjoy and remember for its aesthetic elegance. There is no more fitting legacy for the artist or the architect.
“Pablo Neruda said that the poet says what he has to say in poetry because he has no other way to explain it. We, as an architect, do not preach moral principles. We design and build them. Architecture is about creating a different experience, not only just visualize the place but also what you can touch, what you can feel from the environment that you built ”