最新提问
我的动态
登录后查看动态
题目内容双击单词支持查询和收藏哦～
题目材料：
One of the greatest architectural shortcomings of Western cities today is the lack of unassuming but attractive buildings designed to accommodate public needs, to coexist harmoniously with surrounding architecture, and to form a backdrop for the occasional landmark edifice. Instead, contemporary urban buildings often reflect the notion that the aesthetic criteria of the fine arts of painting or sculpture apply to architecture: each building is an aesthetic object whose purpose is primarily to celebrate the individual expression of the architect. This situation has arisen, in large measure, from the long-standing influence of art history on architectural thought in the West.
Until the late eighteenth century, Western art history encompassed the study of all important works of art, including works of architecture. Identifying the important buildings was easy; they were those built by the most influential institutions of the time the nobility and the ecclesiastical establishment. Such buildings, and the architects who designed them, were relatively few. But from the late eighteenth century onward, increasingly widespread economic prosperity made the services of architects available to many more clients. These new clients expanded the range of architect-designed buildings by commissioning buildings whose symbolic role was secondary or even nonexistent, and in which aesthetic concerns were often superseded by engineering and commercial considerations. As determining the importance of individual buildings thus became more difficult, the art historian had to serve not only as a chronicler but also as a critic. The identity of the architect who created a building became the determinant of the building's importance, and the architects who were considered important were those whose work accorded with art historians' values.
These values have been affected, from the nineteenth century onward, by the Western notion of art as comprising a succession of different styles. Since the identification of architectural style--like the identification of styles in sculpture or painting- is based chiefly on the visual attributes of a building, Western art historians have regarded buildings as discrete art objects. They stress architecture's visual aspects at the expense of such traditional architectural concerns as clients' needs, buildings functions, and buildings' compatibility with the surrounding architecture. Such an emphasis on the purely visual qualities of buildings has caused Western art historians' criticism of contemporary Western architecture, like criticism of contemporary painting and sculpture, to focus on the avant-garde.
The idea that architecture consists of the building of art has produced many startlingly original works. But the cities formed by such buildings appear chaotic and muddled and tend to be inconvenient. Architecture does share with painting and sculpture a concern with beauty, but unlike the fine arts, architecture must also be concerned with a building's utility for people and its relationship to its surrounding environment.
Until the late eighteenth century, Western art history encompassed the study of all important works of art, including works of architecture. Identifying the important buildings was easy; they were those built by the most influential institutions of the time the nobility and the ecclesiastical establishment. Such buildings, and the architects who designed them, were relatively few. But from the late eighteenth century onward, increasingly widespread economic prosperity made the services of architects available to many more clients. These new clients expanded the range of architect-designed buildings by commissioning buildings whose symbolic role was secondary or even nonexistent, and in which aesthetic concerns were often superseded by engineering and commercial considerations. As determining the importance of individual buildings thus became more difficult, the art historian had to serve not only as a chronicler but also as a critic. The identity of the architect who created a building became the determinant of the building's importance, and the architects who were considered important were those whose work accorded with art historians' values.
These values have been affected, from the nineteenth century onward, by the Western notion of art as comprising a succession of different styles. Since the identification of architectural style--like the identification of styles in sculpture or painting- is based chiefly on the visual attributes of a building, Western art historians have regarded buildings as discrete art objects. They stress architecture's visual aspects at the expense of such traditional architectural concerns as clients' needs, buildings functions, and buildings' compatibility with the surrounding architecture. Such an emphasis on the purely visual qualities of buildings has caused Western art historians' criticism of contemporary Western architecture, like criticism of contemporary painting and sculpture, to focus on the avant-garde.
The idea that architecture consists of the building of art has produced many startlingly original works. But the cities formed by such buildings appear chaotic and muddled and tend to be inconvenient. Architecture does share with painting and sculpture a concern with beauty, but unlike the fine arts, architecture must also be concerned with a building's utility for people and its relationship to its surrounding environment.
以上解析由 考满分老师提供。
