Can there be architecture? Before this question can be answered, it needs to be explained. What is meant by public architecture, and why should there be any difficulty about its possibility? The problem arises from dominance of what I shall call the Kantian aesthetic. This is a slightly misleading label because it is arguable that Immanuel Kant himself could not be said to subscribe to it. My concern, however, is not with interpretation of Kant (whose view on these matters is complex), but with a conception of art and that takes its cue from some leading ideas in Kant's third Critique. This conception identifies the with a specific act or attitude of mind that disinterestedly contemplates appearance of objects in experience and derives a distinctive sort of satisfaction from doing so. Three aspects of this conception are especially important. First, it makes apprehension of qualities a matter of individual appreciation. Such appreciation, or judgment, may well (and, according to Kant, ought to) reflect a sensus communis, a common basis on which others arrive at a similar judgment, but shared element consists in a contingent convergence of opinion. Second, judgment finds purposefulness without in objects and appearances it contemplates. This makes judgment disinterested, not in sense of judicial impartiality, but as a form of practical detachment. Third, when brought to bear on natural objects such as a rose, or created objects such as a painting or a piece of music, attitude generates a distinctive kind of often referred to as aesthetic pleasure, and it is for sake of this pleasure that experience is to be valued. These three features, it seems to me, are characteristic of a widely held conception that generates a problem for How could architecture properly be classified as art if objects of art are to be viewed independently of practical interest? Architectural constructs necessarily serve practical purposes. without a purpose is an architectural folly, such as whimsical miniature temples in landscaped gardens of some great English houses. Conversely, a medieval ruin, such as Rievaulx, presents an appearance especially well suited to attitude, but it is still an architectural ruin. Had it been built as it now is, it could not have served practical purposes required of monasteries and abbeys. In short, what I have called Kantian seems to exclude architecture proper from realms of art and gives preference to follies and ruins over functioning buildings. This implication conflicts with fact that greatest of architects-Fillipo Brunelleschi or Christopher Wren, for instance-are by common consent and usage placed alongside great painters, composers, and writers on grounds that there is a distinction between mere building and art of Nicholas Pevsner remarks in opening paragraph of An Outline of European Architecture: A bicycle shed is a building; Lincoln Cathedral is a piece of architecture. Wherein lies difference? Pevsner himself goes on to say: Nearly everything that encloses space on a scale sufficient for a human being to move in is a building; term architecture applies only to buildings designed with a view to