But I’d consider either of the photos way up yonder to qualify as archie photos. Interesting comment in this essay I found..... how photography itself can re-define the meaning of architecture.
It all seems very subjective and I'm from the
keep the brain damage to a minimum school....
:dunce:
Architecture is generally considered an art but is differentiated by it in one respect: function. Regardless, defining architecture is almost, if not as, difficult as defining art. To define architecture is to set parameters, standards by which anything applied to these criteria will either fit the definition or not. The definition must take certain conditions into account that must be present in order for something to be considered architecture. Some of these may include, in reference to a candidate for a piece of architecture: it must be material, it must transcend mere function, it must be aesthetic and it must be designed by an architect. These are some criteria that are generally agreed upon by the public and most architects as necessary traits of architecture.
If architecture must transcend mere function as a condition, a grain elevator is not a piece of architecture. Grain elevators are generally considered purely functional, engineered buildings, satisfying there intended needs and surviving for many years. But with photographic essays devoted to the subject, and the state of these structures changing over the years (with some near the point of ruin), they have entered the realm of architecture in our time.More at link.......
http://www.archidose.org/Mar00/032700.html
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
