Document Type : Translation
Authors
1 Art University of Tehran
2 University of Shahid Behshti, Tehran, Iran
3 University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia
Abstract
Vitruvius’ statement that architecture is the confluence of venustas, utilitas and firmitas (beauty, utility, and soundness of structure) is bedrock in architectural theory. It is a statement on the nature of architecture itself. I will accept Vitruvius’ specification of architectural works, and then ask if there is an appropriate way to judge such works as beautiful. Often it is assumed that beauty in architecture is a matter of formal visual style, and not at all related to utilitas and firmitas.Itis customary to declare a stylish building beautiful, even though it is impractical and illfunctioning. The building may not be deemed a particularly good building, but beautiful nevertheless. Conversely, it is not customary to deem a visually unremarkable building beautiful, even though it is an exceptionally useful building. My position veers from these norms. I think it is possible to find visually unremarkable, frankly utilitarian buildings, such as MIT’s Building 20, beautiful. Moreover, I think it is possible to withhold a positive judgment of beauty from a building that, despite being visually remarkable, fails in its utility. In what follows I will draw on Immanuel Kant’s theory of ‘adherent beauty’ as a model for judging as beautiful visually unremarkable, but exemplary utilitarian buildings. Kant’s theory is useful in this regard as it allows considerations of both utilitas and firmitas to bear on judgments of beauty. Not only does Kant’s theory provide a model for judging utilitarian buildings beautiful, it also sheds light on why one might withhold a positive judgment of beauty from a visually remarkable, but ill-functioning, building.