The role of the architect as artist is an ancient one, but it was de-emphasized with the rise of modernism, which rejected the drawing-based Beaux-Arts tradition in favor of a more technocratic approach.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
With a painter or a sculptor, one cannot begin to alter his works, but an architect has to put up with anything, because he makes utility objects - the building is there to be used, and times change.
I think the artistic side of architecture was natural to me. My mother was an artist and a poet.
No person who is not a great sculptor or painter can be an architect. If he is not a sculptor or painter, he can only be a builder.
In Europe, architects consider themselves artists. They think they're special when they win a competition.
If architecture had nothing to do with art, it would be astonishingly easy to build houses, but the architect's task - his most difficult task - is always that of selecting.
There is a profound ethic to architecture which is different from the other arts.
I don't think architecture should be considered as an art form in the first instance. Whenever I say that, it makes people really angry. But this is a very political profession in the Grecian sense. I believe there have to be reasons for every building, and that the ideas should not be self-referential.
If, early on, you know how things are put together, then you can build. The architect is in charge of making - he is not an artist.
The traditional notion of an architect having a vision of a building and then drawing it either on paper or on a computer and then constructing it isn't really how architecture works, and in reality, the computer has a lot of influence on design.
I come from a long line of architects. I'm the only one who did not become an architect, but I've been around the drawing aspect and construction my whole life.