If I had a choice between being an 'artist' and a 'servant' I certainly
would choose artist.  I think the problem is not whether the architect
considers themselves an artist, but whether they consider themselves to be
solely a visual artist or what I would call a holistic artist (perhaps
there is an actual term for the latter?)  By holistic artist I mean one who
is concerned with all aspects of the experience created by their art.  An
architect concerned only with the building's appearance can be a nightmare.
But an architect solely concerned with function can also be a nightmare.
An architect who designs a building which elevates or enhances our state of
mind (those who work within as well as those who visit)...well, as someone
who is significantly affected by their surroundings - I think such
architects/artists are a rare treasure.
Jodi Gronborg


>the problem seem to be that architects want to state a point, feel
>themselves as artists rather than servants to the public.
>The problem is that the work of an artist enjoys or annoys future generation
>whcih just have to live with their pieces of art. Thats the difference to
>paintings, sculptures or theatre plays: they vanish, they are enjoyed only
>by the chosen few.
>My advice: If you have to create a building intended for human use, do not
>choose an architect who feels that he is an artist in the fist place. Choose
>an engineer, a humble architect and spend a lot of time with them, looking
>at their previous buildings, but also talking to the people living in their
>previous buildings, not just listening to the sermons of artistic
>architects.
>
>Let them design temples, churches and empty monuments, but never functional
>houses where human beings will live for centuries.
>
>Greetings,
>Peter, the Rebernik
>...


Jodi Gronborg, Exhibit Developer
Chicago Academy of Sciences, The Nature Museum

*Opinions expressed are my own and may not necessarily be that of my employer.