I think we need to agree on a definition of "art" first. Here is one
that seems appropriate to the context of the question:
"human endeavor thought to be aesthetic and have meaning beyond simple
description. Includes music, dance, sculpture, painting, drawing,
stitchery, weaving, poetry, writing, woodworking, etc. A medium of
expression where the individual and culture come together."
oregonstate.edu/instruct/anth370/gloss.html
Architectural design should also be aesthetic, and certainly is at the
highest level - Greek temples, Roman aquaducts, Renaissance
structures, etc., etc. - but if we are contrasting the two, the
difference would be that archtectural (and other) "design" is
utilitarian, the product is something that has a use - even if the
design is not aesthetic, indeed, even if it is poorly designed for its
purpose.
The types of human endeavor described simply as "art" generally do not
have any practical purpose or use; they are decorative, attractive,
beautiful, emotionally uplifting - also puzzling or disturbing - but
not necessary for any other purpose.
Does that help? |
