Architecture Vs Sculpture

731 Words3 Pages
architecture vs sculpture Look at the two pictures; they depict two contemporary, well-known and generally admired three-dimensional artworks. The first of them is a work by an architect. The second one, a work by a sculptor. However, does it mean that the first one is unquestionably an architecture work? Or would be more correct to consider that we are looking at a large sculpture "disguised" as architecture? Personally, I would incline to accept this second option, basing this idea on a series of reasons that I'll develop in this essay. In his essential book "Introduzione all'architettura", Bruno Zevi, one of the most important Architecture critics of the 20th century, points, talking about to the Parthenon: "Those who investigate the Greek temple in an architectonical way, looking only for a space conception, will have to flee horrified, considering it as a typical example of not-architecture. But those who approach to the Parthenon and contemplate it as a great sculpture will stay admired as in front of the best works ever created by the human genius". Saving the obvious temporary distances, this affirmation would be suitable for most of the most celebrated architectures of nowadays. What is Architecture, after all? Is it possible to find an exact definition that allows us to trace a dividing line between what we can consider Architecture and what no? It is very probable that no, as no precise definition exist for the concept of Art, or even for the concept of Love. But it is possible, for example, to distinguish between what is Architecture and what is just construction. Nobody doubts, for example, that a gothic chapel or a Venetian palace is an excellent and unquestionable example of Architecture, whereas a great petrol tank (of similar dimensions) does not deserve such consideration. In the same way, it is also possible to find values that allow us to

More about Architecture Vs Sculpture

Open Document