{"id":17228,"date":"2023-11-15T15:36:02","date_gmt":"2023-11-15T14:36:02","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.architecturemaker.com\/?p=17228"},"modified":"2023-11-15T15:36:02","modified_gmt":"2023-11-15T14:36:02","slug":"why-architecture-is-not-art","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.architecturemaker.com\/why-architecture-is-not-art\/","title":{"rendered":"Why Architecture Is Not Art"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n

Architecture is Not Art: Examining the Difference<\/h2>\n

Architecture and art are often confused, yet they are quite distinct disciplines. While both involve the creation of something aesthetically pleasing, the approaches and objectives of the disciplines differ greatly. In general, architecture is the process of building physical structures. This could include anything from a home, office, or civic structure, to an entire city.<\/p>\n

Art, on the other hand, is the expression of an emotion or concept by an artist. While a painting or sculpture may take on a form that resembles something from the architecture field, they will ultimately take on a unique character as expressions of the artists’ thoughts and feeling.<\/p>\n

The distinction between the two is best illustrated by imagining a home. An architect may design a building in such a way and using such materials that it adheres to a certain style, such as Victorian or Georgian, or to an abstract concept, such as modernism or minimalism. Yet the work will be done within certain parameters and the overall design must adhere to rules of strength, safety and economy.<\/p>\n

An artist, on the other hand, may paint a mural on the side of the building, or create a sculpture for the yard, or place abstract objects on the roof to express an emotion or concept. These artistic works may be open to interpretation, can be done in any style, and can be changed as the artist sees fit.<\/p>\n