+
From: Kimberly Santini <KSantini@xxxxxxxxx>
+
Date: Thu, 4 May 1995 10:37:54 -0800
>>> (D. Michael Coffee) <DMCARTS@xxxxxxx> 05/03/95 06:44pm >>>
any thoughts as to why architecture is an "art" given the large range and
amount of compulsory requirements, i.e. codes, gravity (structural),
anthropometric, programatic, budgetary, site conditions, etc. Is
architecture a visual art or a technology?
dmc
Why does architecture have to be one or the other? And is it actually
possible to separate any visual art that is being made today from
technology?
I think in order for architecture to be exciting, it must challenge, and
oftentimes visually toy with the "compulsory requirements." Although
that is only my opinion.....
Kimberly Santini