I do believe architecture, and all art, should be content-driven. It should have something to say beyond the sensational.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
Architecture is art, nothing else.
If a building becomes architecture, then it is art.
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.
There is a profound ethic to architecture which is different from the other arts.
There are a lot of questions about whether architecture is art. The people who ask that think pretty tract houses are architecture. But that doesn't hold up.
It's not new that architecture can profoundly affect a place, sometimes transform it. Architecture and any art can transform a person, even save someone.
The aesthetic of architecture has to be rooted in a broader idea about human activities like walking, relaxing and communicating. Architecture thinks about how these activities can be given added value.
Rationalism is the enemy of art, though necessary as a basis for architecture.
The details are the very source of expression in architecture. But we are caught in a vice between art and the bottom line.
Architecture is not an inspirational business, it's a rational procedure to do sensible and hopefully beautiful things; that's all.