eli5 why is architecture is considered to be creative(art), and is also considered to be very hard?

292 views

(BTW, from the beginning I want to say sorry, I’m just a teenager, and I don’t want to mock, or offend anyone with this post, I’m sorry if this post was a little bit aggresive, and i’m also sorry that I didn’t do research before posting this post, I respect architects, and I find architecture to be interesting)

So, first of all, architects study many years, and they study things like math, and science, and architecture is considered to be an art by many people, So, what kind of creativity, and knowledge of sciences does building a rectangle(cube) need?
Like, how, architecture can be related to creativity, and now i’m not talking about rectangles, and cubes, i’m talking about building that are usually considered to be an art, like creating a crappy sketch of a strange curvy thing, or round thing, or big thing, or maybe thing with a lot of cubes is considered to be creative, and architects aren’t engineering who will blow their minds out to comprehend how to build that thing, and as i know architects have nothing to do with things like colors, plumbing, air systems, electricity systems, ceiling design, furniture, materials, and etc of a building.
Like they don’t go there and say “this room will be blue, this room will be red, and that room will be yellow, electricity system will be like that, air system will be like that, sofas, and chair will be like that, doors, and stair will be like that, colors will be like that, chandeliers will be like that, toilets, and tiles will be like that, carpets, and curtains will be like that” and etc, they don’t do it(as i know, or is it the opposite, and architect is the one who does all of that?)
and so if everything thing is like that, then why do architects study so many years, and they study things like math, and science, and architecture is considered to be a creative thing(art) and is considered to be very hard? (thanks, for reading my post)

In: 0

15 Answers

Anonymous 0 Comments

If you know anything about film making, the architect is roughly the director, and the engineer is roughly the producer.

The director of a film is the creative control. They have a vision in their head of what the film should look like, and it’s their job to direct everyone in the process to turn that vision into a real thing. And they have a duty to do it in such a way that whatever they’re dreaming up is actually physically possible. Obviously if you shoot for nonsense, you won’t make a film. All of the skill is in compromising your creative vision with the restrictions of the real world.

The producer of a film is the one who has the director on a leash, telling them what they actually can and can’t do. If the producer thinks it can be done, they work hard to line everything up properly so it gets done. But if the director asks for something that absolutely is not going to work, be that for lack of sufficient funds, materials, labor, time, etc, the producer will smack it down and tell the director to draw up something else. In this way, the producer role is a kind of sanity check to ensure that the operation doesn’t drive itself off a cliff.

Architects and engineers have a somewhat similar relationship. Architects dream up what a building should look like according to some vision, and it’s their job to design the building and communicate that design to the people who are actually going to build it. And in doing so, they have a duty to ensure that what they dream up can actually be built. The engineer, meanwhile, is in the back keeping a careful eye on what the architect is doing, and making sure that they’re staying within known parameters of things like material strengths, costs, etc. If the architect tries to make something that the engineer can’t prove to be adequate, the engineer strikes it down and the architect goes back to the drawing board. Of course, ideally, the architect will be knowledgeable enough on their own to not end up in this situation.

This is of course glossing over all of the other considerations like ventilation, plumbing, electrical, fire suppression, etc. All things that both the architect and engineer need to understand the broad strokes of, but the details of which are probably going to be left to specialists.

So, since the architect has the ultimate creative control, that by definition makes it a creative profession. But at the same time, since they’re also trying to make sure they stay within real world limitations, it also requires a lot of math and engineering knowledge. Perhaps not necessarily to the degree of an actual licensed engineer (though, I’m sure dual architect/engineers exist, there is considerable overlap), but enough to have solid intuitions about what they can and can’t do, and what may be necessary to make their more avant garde designs feasible.

You are viewing 1 out of 15 answers, click here to view all answers.