Scruton write here in his "The Problem Of Architecture"-
Moreover, the attempt to treat architecture as a form of 'art' in Collingwood's sense involves taking a step towards expressionism, 9 Collingwood began his exploration of art and the aesthetic from a distinction between art and craft. Initially it seems quite reasonable to distinguish the attitude of the craftsman -who aims at a certain result and does what he can to achieve it-from that of the artist, who knows what he is dOing, as it were, only when it is done. But it is precisely the case of architecture which casts doubt on that distinction. For whatever else it is, architecture is certainly, in Collingwood's sense, a craft. The utility of a building is not an accidental property; it defines the architect's endeavour. To maintain this sharp distinction between art and craft is simply to ignore the reality of architecture -not because architecture is a mixture of art and craft (for, as Collingwood recognized, that is true of all aesthetic activity) but because architecture represents an almost indescribable synthesis ofthe two.
I'd have to agree with Collingwood and Scruton. I do and have always believed that it is an incredible blending of art and craft (or math and science). But here's what he goes on to say-
towards seeing architecture in the way that one might see sculpture or painting, as an expressive activity, deriving its nature and value from a peculiarly artistic aim. For Collingwood 'expression' was the primary aim of art precisely because there could be no craft of expression. In the case of expression, there can be no rule or procedure, such as might be followed by a craftsman, vvith a clear end in view and a clear means to its fulfilment; it was therefore through the concept of 'expression' that he tried to clarify the distinction between art and craft. Collingwoodif he can identify the feeling it is because he has already expressed it. Expression is not, therefore, an activity whose goal can be defined prior to its achievement; it is not an activity that can be described in terms of end and means. So if art is expression, it cannot be craft (although its realization may also involve the mastery of many subsidiary crafts).
Here's what I think. I am not going to argue Intention versus Expression. I think that its like arguing pre-determination or fate. And almost as pointless. I think its not either expression or intention, art or craft. I think that, like a grayscale, it starts mostly as one and ends mostly as the other. Consider this. All actions or expressions begin with a prompt. For the architect it is a RFP, but say your cat knocked over your antique ming vase and shattered it. That is the prompt. You then analyse what happened and an intention builds. You know your emotional aim, It is then manifested in an expression. Whether it is kicking the cat or crying because something beautiful was destroyed. It is an expression. In much the same way I believe that architecture or the act of architecting something begins with the analysis and the intention forms and as you are executing your intention it slowly becomes expression. Any student and I'm sure most good architects can honestly say that you put the initial momentum into a project. But as you move on and it developes itself. It developes its own mind and reveals opportunities and potenial back to you.
Here's one more example to look at. Valve made a game called team fortress 2. In the xbox360 version of orange box (the game title that TF2 came in) they had an aim with was a strong stylized concept and a game that conveys all of its messages through visuals in gameplay as opposed to through the HUD. Go get the game and walk throught the commentary that they formulate.
I believe architecture should be an expression or at least have an expressionistic quality, because without expression we have the products of intention but without a humanistic feeling, they lack emotion and depth.
6
