Roger Scruton. “The Problem of Architecture” from The Aesthetics of Architecture, 1979. Scruton was professor of aesthetics at Birkbeck College, London, between 1971 and 1991. He has written over 30 books and also writes music, including an opera entitled the Minister.

1. Since buildings are places where humans work etc. the form is imposed by the needs and desires the buildings are supposed to fulfill.1.1. Unlike other art forms it is not required that a building be

aesthetic.1.2. Also unlike other art forms the function of architecture

stems from its essence.2. Functionalism has many forms.

2.1. Popular form: true beauty in architecture consists in adapting form to function.

2.2. A crude form: since architecture involves adapting means to ends, we appreciate buildings as means, as contrasted to other art forms [he mentions on pg. 117 that crude functionalism would have us evaluate architecture in the same way we evaluate toilets].

3. But what is valuing something as an end? 3.1. Collingwood distinguished art from craft, and architecture is

a craft in Collingwood’s sense.3.1.1. Yet architecture synthesizes art and craft (doesn’t just

mix them), which poses a problem for Collingwood’s distinction.

3.2. To see architecture as art in Collingwood’s sense would be to see it as an expressive activity.

3.3. But there is no craft of expression for Collingwood as there is no procedure to follow in expression.

4. It is a distortion to assume that architecture is “expressive” in the way sculpture is.4.1. The value of a building cannot be seen as independent of its

utility.4.2. One could take a sculptural view of architecture where the

connection to function is merely accidental. Then texture, surface, form representation and expression would take on more importance than the specifically architectural.

4.2.1. The decorative aspect would then become more autonomous and personal.

4.2.2. Gaudi is one example: in his work (in which the building represents itself as a form of tree-like growth), the decorative is strangely translated into the structural, and the accidental has become the essential.

4.2.2.1. His buildings are only elaborate expressionist sculptures.

4.2.3. De Castilho’s window is not an organic growth, although it looks like it.

4.2.4. Perhaps the same view as Gaudi’s finds architectural significance in the geometry of the Egyptian pyramid. [attack on Le Corbusier?]

4.2.5. This view implies (wrongly)that one can judge the beauty of something without knowing what kind of thing it is.

4.2.6. But, vs. Kant, our sense of beauty is always dependent on a conception of the object: for what we consider beautiful on a horse we would see as ugly in a man.

5. Another definition of functionalism is an attempt to assert architectural as opposed to sculptural values.5.1. Eugene Viollet-le-Duc and American architect Louis

Sullivan argued that form should follow or express function. 5.2. The subtle functionalism of Augustus Pugin held that

function is necessary as a standard of taste, helps us to distinguish genuine from idle ornament. This is a “diluted” form of functionalism.

6. Architecture is also highly localized: change of place involves change of character (unlike works of literature or paintings). 6.1. Buildings and their environment are important to each other. 6.2. Buildings cannot be reproduced at will without absurd

consequences.6.3. They are affected by changes in their surroundings: for

example, the Bernini piazza.6.4. For some buildings the effect depends on their location:

Borromini’s church, temple of Agrigento, and Le Nôtre’s garden.

6.5. Though some buildings can be reproduced, for example St. Pancras reproducing the Erechtheum, this is just a scholarly exercise.

6.6. We expect fine architecture buildings to have a sense of place, e.g. to claim dominion: Le Corbusier’s Ronchamp chapel and the Sydney Opera House.

6.7. The sense of place, and the sense of immovability, constrains architecture: architecture is an art of ensemble and is vulnerable to change in surroundings.

6.8. Like interior decoration and fashion, taste [here] shows the importance of style. [contra Loos and Le Corbusier.]

7. Moreover, what is possible in architecture is determined by technical advances.7.1. For example Maillart’s bridges depended on the existence of

reinforced concrete.7.2. Unlike the other arts, the evolution of architecture does not

follow a changing attitude to art, a shifting spirit of creation. Brunelleschi’s dome is an exception that proves the rule.

7.3. So we should question the idea that the modern movement is better because more in keeping with the spirit of the age [a view held by Le Corbusier?].

8. Architecture is a public object: there is no free choice as to whether the public may observe it. 8.1. The architect does not create his public, unlike poetry and

music.

8.2. The architect may change taste but only by appealing to the public at large.

8.3. Thus modernism in architecture is different from modernism in the other arts.

8.4. In other forms, modernism depends on subjectivity of outlook and has been individualistic and expressive.

8.5. For example, the modernist composer Schoenberg transformed music in a self-conscious way for the educated ear.

8.6. Although it is necessary for the other arts to have modernity, it is not possible in architecture: it is public and it takes up space.

9. The most important feature of architecture is continuity with the decorative arts in having many aims.9.1. Even the aesthetic in a work of architecture is simply to

“look right” in the same way a table should. It is primarily a vernacular art: a process of arrangement.

9.2. It does not have art “meanings,” present itself self-consciously as art, or have Hegelian content. It naturally extends human activities.

9.3. So: an aesthetics of architecture is at least an aesthetics of everyday life: not high art but practical wisdom.

9.4. Indeed, our post-romantic conception of art with its obscure concept of expression is inappropriate to the description of normal aesthetic judgments of normal men.