Language of Architecture. Some Reflections on Nelson Goodman’s Theory of Symbols

Abstract

This article discusses the status of buildings as works of art. Judging architecture cannot be restricted to aesthetics, since architecture is an extremely interdisciplinary art. As a ‚joint venture’, the example of architecture shows strengths as well as shortcomings of Goodman’s theory of symbols. When we try to describe architecture, a serious problem arises. As far as the eye can see, there are buildings. People in modern society live in a built environment that encompasses everything from the simple wooden shed to the skyscraper, including the town house, the tenement block and the office block, roads and bridges and landscapes shaped by human design – the list goes on and on. But not everything that is built is architecture. So what distinguishes the mere built from architectural art? In brief and succinct terms, architectural art exists when a building is a work of art. But this answer immediately raises another question: when are buildings art? When it comes to architecture, most popular definitions of art do not hold. Art is what is created by an artist. But being an artist’s work does not mean that the object is art. Even celebrated architects count among their designs buildings that were simply carried out to keep the architectural firm going. And to explain art as what an artist creates intentionally is no help either, as artists can have a wide array of intentions. Having intentions is no guarantee of keeping them! 1 Presented in an earlier version at the Congress CATH 2004: Philosophy of Architecture. Architecture of Philosophy, 11.7.2004, Bradford, UK.