tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6131797619836690793.post1607268505664509317..comments2021-10-18T03:31:52.745-07:00Comments on The Radiance of Form: Four Questions: Q1: What is architecture?Erik Bootsmahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03749834088028424348noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6131797619836690793.post-70477748391107000132014-07-08T08:29:23.350-07:002014-07-08T08:29:23.350-07:00Ah, Mr. Bootsma, just so! Your choice of the word ...Ah, Mr. Bootsma, just so! Your choice of the word "poetry" to describe that ineffable, perceivable, felt, certain something that elevates a building to the level of fine art is excellent. And the philosopher agrees: My buddy Kierkegaard, in his book "Repetition" uses that same word to define the quality a man must possess in order to be truly whole.<br /> I would disagree on one small matter. You state that a perfectly acceptable building is not, by your definition, architecture. It seems to me that, by common definition, all buildings are architecture. Bad or insignificant architecture, perhaps, but, architecture, none-the-less. Mind you, this is semantics; but, you know, the proper semantics matter when word-smithing. <br /> Besides that, I reiterate, "Poetry" is spot on. This essay was long overdue, a delight to read and great food for thought. Plus, I find myself agreeing with you (!) Well done, Erik. Bob Forsthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18058886981337502837noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6131797619836690793.post-90494034107058336512014-07-07T07:20:10.485-07:002014-07-07T07:20:10.485-07:00My own working definition is "architecture is...My own working definition is "architecture is the fine art of making buildings for both the body and the soul". Schloederhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05785521997797017430noreply@blogger.com