What is architecture?
This may seem like a silly question to ask on an architecture website. You may think: easy, ask anyone or look it up in a dictionary; architecture is the design of buildings or other constructed spaces; or it could, also, refer to a style of building, that's a nice clean answer.
So we're done, right? Not quite.
When asking a question like "what is architecture?'', what is really being asked is what makes a building or space architecture as opposed to just a building or a space. I recently came across an article that started by noting; 'asking an architect to design a safe building is like asking a chef to cook a safe meal'. It's a low threshold of expectation, something expected but much less than what the architect, chef, or even the person making the request, really wants. In fact, this is so low of a threshold that the architect or chef is unlikely to even mention these specific criteria when defining architecture or cuisine respectively. So asking "what is architecture," is in a sense, akin to asking; 'what is cuisine' or 'what is fashion'. All food is not cuisine, all clothes are not fashion and, likewise, all buildings are not architecture. Some would even argue that architecture does not exclusively include buildings. This may seem a bit pretentious but as architects it is important to evaluate what we are doing, in the big picture.
So, again, our question; what is architecture?
If you ask an architect, you are likely to find a variety of definitions. In fact you are likely to get as many different answers as architects you ask. In his "Ten Books on Architecture" Vitruvius devotes a chapter to the fundamental principles of architecture and goes on to assert that architecture "must be built with due reference to durability, convenience, and beauty." All ten books describe architecture in detail, but many have looked at this passage as Vitruvius' own definition of architecture. Since this, our oldest surviving example of architecture theory, there have been countless writings that address just what defines architecture. Vitruvius' definition does offer a basic framework that many others have referenced; durability - a physical object with sound structure; convenience - functional design that serves its users; and beauty - a pleasing aesthetic in form and materials. These have been singled out by some as having more importance than others.
Durability
One thing we can agree upon is that architecture depends on the built form, right? I mean many architects have famously, and less famously, noted the importance of a built structure to define architecture. Vitruvius’ own definition starts with stating architecture “must be built….” Likewise, Le Corbusier declared "a house is a machine for living in", the physical structure must exist to do the “living in” after all, right?. Alvaro Siza stated "architecture is geometry", also noting the importance of the physical. Nicolai Ouroussoff wrote that “Architecture is a physical experience, it needs to be seen and touched to be wholly understood.”, and even Ludwig Mies van der Rohe insisted that "architecture starts when you carefully put two bricks together."
But if we dig further we find that even the point that architecture starts with a building, or other physical object or form, is not necessarily in the consensus. Some have completely rejected the idea of architecture having to be built at all, perhaps most famously Lebbeus Woods who wrote that we should "resist the idea that architecture is a building", insisting that "architecture is about ideas", a sentiment echoed by, Francisco Mangado who similarly stated "architecture is not always synonymous with building" and Qingyun Ma who said "architecture is more about ideas than materials."
These thoughts are not, necessarily, contradictory. Much of the architecture we study in school we study only as their representations. We may not visit the buildings we study, let alone all of the buildings that are published which have an impact on the profession. After all, who among us has the time or resources to visit all the buildings we want. Can we not expand our knowledge of architecture other than through first hand experiences? If we don’t visit a building and experience it, is it not architecture? We have surly studied and appreciated buildings that have since been demolished or succumb to the ravages of time. But we may have descriptions, drawings, or other physical representations of them. If a building is demolished, is it no longer architecture? If you would agree that it is still architecture, then what is the difference between a building that was demolished 1,000-years ago and one that was designed but never built 1,000-years ago, and what does 1,000-years have to do with anything, how about 1-year, 1-day ago, does it make a difference?
Convenience
So, if we can't even agree about architecture being built, where do we go from here? Well we can look back at the quote from Le Corbusier above which alludes to the function of a building, referencing the convenience part of Vitruvius' definition. Many are surely familiar with the statement attributed to Louis Sullivan that "form follows function", putting use in the driver's seat. Without an initial need to fulfill a function, form cannot start to take shape, regarding architecture. In fact function is a familiar theme when looking at how architects describe architecture. Steven Ehrlich said that "architecture is first and foremost about serving people..." and "to design buildings that fulfill their practical purpose...." Some have even given so much priority to function that the importance of form seems to start to dwindle. For instance Harry Seidler stated that "architecture is not an inspirational business" and instead "it's a rational procedure...." André Tavares has said that “architecture is not about the creation of newness but rather about the fulfillment of needs and expectations." While, Yoshio Taniguchi stated "architecture is basically a container of something, I hope they will enjoy not so much the teacup, but the tea."
Some of these statements by architects seem to suggest that, if a solution to a problem of function is solvable without building, it could still be an architectural solution. If function is key, there are many ways to solve problems, even spatial ones, which may not include what we typically consider architecture. It is even conceivable that a building could be the source of a problem, and removing it is the solution. That was the approach taken with the Pruitt Igoe housing projects. So, could the destruction of a building be architecture? This seems counterintuitive to how we are trained, but likely something that someone like Gordon Matta Clark, who explored “making space without building it”, could agree with. However, it is hard to defend that function alone defines architecture, as much as it defines cuisine or fashion. Purely utilitarian structures are not typically those which are applauded as great architecture or advancing the profession. While architecture does center around functional space, those that are designed with care and have other qualities beyond function alone, are the ones we celebrate. While you may be hard pressed to find an architect who thinks function, or convenience is not important, most believe aesthetics, or beauty, are nearly, just as, or even more important.
Beauty
Many, arguably most, architects would put beauty at the top of the list when defining what makes a building architecture. Alvaro Siza took this to the extreme when he said "Beauty is the peak of functionality! If something is beautiful, it is functional…. Beauty is the key functionality for architects… a search for beauty should be the number one preoccupation of any architect." Many may not take this intense of a stance but most feel strongly about beauty. R. Buckminster Fuller famously stated; “When I am working on a problem, I never think about beauty but when I have finished, if the solution is not beautiful, I know it is wrong.” So, it is probably safe to say that beauty, aesthetics, is key in defining architecture. However, as the saying goes, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Architects have debated what defines beauty in architecture, probably since the beginning of time. Vitruvius’ book sets out a set of complex rules about architecture. Presumably if you don’t follow the rules the result is not beautiful. But, again, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Rem Koolhaas once said “talk about beauty and you get boring answers, but talk about ugliness and things get interesting,” highlighting our interest in discussing beauty and aesthetics about architecture, and in general.
Similar conversations happen around art. What is art, what is beautiful. Art is something else countless architects have compared with architecture. Some have even equated the two and placed architecture at the forefront of art. Frank Lloyd Wright stated "the mother of art is architecture, " and, while not typically associated with architecture Havelock Ellis stated that "...architecture is the beginning of all the arts…” But what kind of art? Julia Morgan plainly stated that “architecture is a visual art” while Peter Zumthor insisted that "...architecture is a sensuous art..." something you experience and is perceived with the senses, something you feel, beyond the visual”. I think Jay A. Pritzker, of Pritzker Prize fame, summed things up nicely when he said “Architecture is intended to transcend the simple need for shelter and security by becoming an expression of artistry."
Using such a subjective word as beauty, then, may not be our best approach. Since what is considered beautiful does change across space and time, just like fashion, or even physical features. Different cultures, different times throughout history, define beauty differently. With so many different interpretations of beauty, can we agree that architecture must be beautiful? If it is not beautiful, is it not architecture, or is it bad architecture? When identifying something, or someone, as beautiful we are usually referring to physical features including shape, form, proportion, symmetry or balance, and the entire composition, the relationship between different parts that make up the whole. With architecture we also consider context, scale, materials, color, texture, details, decoration, or lack thereof, and countless other factors. Is it possible to create an objective definition of beauty? Philosophers have tackled this question throughout time, so we will leave it to them. Even if we do not agree what is beautiful, maybe there can still be a consensus that aesthetics play a role in defining architecture. For lack of anything better let’s consider beauty as thoughtful design, that considers the factors mentioned above, even if we still debate its success. After all, we live in a world where everything is designed.
Design
As we, I, struggle to define ‘what is architecture’ we may consider what else can define architecture beyond the three characteristics outlined by Vitruvius. Considering what has been addressed thus far, are there any commonalities between durability, convenience, and beauty? Even if everyone doesn’t agree on these characteristics, can we believe that the act of architecture is deliberate? It is created on-purpose (and for a purpose, i.e. convenience), is it not? It has never been argued that architecture is a natural occurrence, even if that natural occurrence has the properties established by Vitruvius. Think about it, a cave can offer durability, convenience (function), and beauty, but, is it architecture? Architects would surely argue against this. So, let’s agree that a key factor in defining architecture is that it is deliberate, intentional, designed. As discussed above, design also considers beauty, or aesthetics, but doesn’t assume a subjective nature. Design, whether good or bad, is still design.
Design, of course, is not exclusive to architecture. We live in a world where everything is designed, the technology on which you are reading this, whether digital or print, the clothes and shoes you are wearing, the mode of transportation you use, packaging, literally everything. So, how do we separate architecture from everything that is designed? Does it have to do with size, or scale? Maybe. Architecture is typically thought of spaces that can be occupied or buildings that can be observed from afar. But there is large scale art that we can occupy, how do we separate that from architecture. Richard Serra, who famously creates pieces of art many have compared with architecture, offered a suggestion when he stated that “art is useless, not useful.” He is offering a clear separation between art and architecture, that of function.
Likewise, architects often talk about placemaking. Yes, all types of designers work to create places with simple interventions, like landscaping, benches, even signage, but none of these are architecture. So, if we are to "resist the idea that architecture is a building,” what do architectural ideas and architectural buildings share? What are these ideas about? Perhaps Victor Hugo offers some insight in his observation that “architecture has recorded the great ideas of the human race.” Christopher Janney shares some wisdom when stating that “architecture is a frame of mind, it’s about ideas” but noted that “the profession is about how to translate those ideas into the real world.” This implies a separation between architecture as an act and architecture as a profession, and recognizes that architecture is complex and cannot be singularly defined.
Contemporary
In order to take in the big picture sometimes it is important to step back and consider the context and perspective of architecture. As with art, the meaning of architecture has changed throughout history depending on the context, both physical and social, and perspective, which changes constantly. Just as what is found favorable aesthetically has changed throughout time, so have the factors that define architecture, and influence what is considered “good” architecture, throughout history. We live in a time where sustainability, equity, and history are playing larger roles in the world, including architecture. With this in mind, this may be a good time to reflect on how we define architecture, good, bad, or otherwise. Asking ourselves, from time to time, “what is architecture?” is a time to reflect on what the state of the profession is. While it may seem like a purely academic or philosophical question, it does not have to be, and shouldn’t be.
The question we are really asking is, what is architecture today? Yes, it has function and is designed, but in our time it must also respond to the zeitgeist. Today, architecture must address issues of sustainability, social responsibility, and equity as much as it must address changing technology, material science, and changes in social norms, like how we use space. Considering the time we live in, it is quite likely that architects will be engaged in more and more projects that are not buildings but do address the issues of architecture. Architects are problem solvers, so architecture’s primary goal should be to solve problems. Our first step in this process is to understand what the problem is, or more likely what the many problems are and seek out the solutions. Architecture is multifaceted and, therefore, cannot be defined singularly, it cannot exist if it fulfills only one criteria. So, maybe searching for a single definition could be considered a fool's errand (seems I may have played the fool here). But, just as in the practice of architecture, the process can be just as rewarding as the outcome.
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe said “architecture is frozen music.” But, architecture is a journey, both figuratively and literally. Architecture is physical as well as temporal, it is three-dimensional, no, it is four-dimensional as it requires experience, even if not in situ, likewise, architecture exists during its time in history. Architecture cannot be frozen as it must exist in time as well as space, and so must its definition.
Final Thoughts (for now)
Architecture is about more than buildings, it is also about ideas. A drawing, essay, or model, could be considered architecture, just as a recipe could be considered cuisine, or a composition considered music. It may be incomplete but it still is. Considering the differences between clothes/fashion and food/cuisine, may offer insight. What separates buildings from architecture may be quality of materials (ingredients) and design, the user's experience, the designer's intent, and its role in culture. Often a notable moment in art, music, fashion, and yes, architecture, has an impact that shapes the future both within and separate from the profession. An impact to the built environment, even if academic or theoretical, is what defines architecture. So, while architecture is about more than buildings and can be created or influenced without a building, it is about the built environment. The final product that we, as architects, produce is typically a set of construction documents; like a composer writes music, until it is performed it has not been fully realized. Architecture is about buildings in the macro but is not necessarily about buildings in the micro.
I challenge you to explore and answer this question for yourself, based on your context, perspective, and values. To continue the conversation, quotes from others who have attempted to answer this question will be posted on Twitter with #quoteforarchitecture, join in by sharing yours.
Thank you.
