Join LibraryThing to post.
This topic is currently marked as "dormant"—the last message is more than 90 days old. You can revive it by posting a reply.
Question: does an art-history book on architecture -- like this work -- belong in art or architecture? I've got it in the latter, but it could go just as easily go in the former.
I'd say the subject is architecture, even if its written from a different discipline.
It occurs to me that "architecture" might be expanded to "architecture and design" (to include industrial design, costume design, urban design, graphic design, etc).
The expansion to include design would blur the line between them a little further, I think. I mean, industrial design and urban design don't sound bad with architecture, but graphic design sounds more like art and costume design doesn't really quite fit with either.
No I wouldn't lump all kinds of design together, just because they are all called "design".
In the case of the book that started this thread: it's an art historical approach to medieval architecture - in my view the subject still is architecture.
>4 BarkingMatt: I wouldn't lump all kinds of design together
There was a rather nice series of books published by Penguin in the 1940s of which this is an example: The Things we see: Furniture . It was one of Penguin's projects which didn't get carried through to completion but they looked at houses, pottery, etc. The author of the introductory volume wrote: "The authors....set out to explain the essentials of good design." Perhaps there is enough commonality between the intentions and processes of designers in different fields to justify a single top level category (which would, for my money, include architecture).
ETA to try to fix Touchstones (unsuccessfully)
> 5: I do see the connection between many kinds of design - furniture, interior, ceramics, maybe even fashion... But then there are also fields, like graphic and typographic design for instance, or packaging design, which - for me at least - are an entirely different world. Ah well...
On a related note : having photography on top level is really counterintuitive (for me). I listed some books on photography as "art" before I noticed it was even there.
> 7: Agree with that completely - we'd need another Photography subset in Crafts & Hobbies as well, of course.
I wouldn't have Architecture as a top-level category at all as it's a blended discipline of art and engineering with separate books for those aspects.
(Science > Engineering > Architecture) for more technical/academic works on the subject.
(Art > History > Architecture > Gothic) or (Art > History > Architecture > Bauhaus) for histories of architectural styles and movements.
(Art > Photography > Architecture > Frank Gehry, etc.) for books of photography where the subjects are architectural.
>7 BarkingMatt:,8 Ditto
>9 ExVivre: as an architect I couldn't disagree more
How do I find Architecturebooks when I need a new one, run all over the bookshop, library? No - Architecture as top level is a must for me as an Architect.
>10 IaaS: Then I might as well say that Medicine is a top-level must for me as a doctor - Where would this approach stop?
Architecture is divided in 3 different categories, building, interior and landscapes. In Norway they are 3 different studies, but we are all members of the same architect-society.
> 11. Do you need to run all over the library or the bookshop to find medicinebooks ? Would it be practical to go to physics, biology, chemistry, etc. to find your new medicinebooks.
Architecture is not art, even if some architects claim to be artists. Some of the result/product is art though. And will be subdivided under its own category.
This new system are ment to be practical for the users. The people that know the subject are the users mostly.
Keeping the architecture books together is a different matter to keeping architecture at the top level.
Presumably there are also base Architecture books that cover the field at a more general or introductory level (presumably students study the general stuff and then specialise).
As a non-architect there are overlaps with other subjects. With Art (from the aesthetic sense), with Engineering (from the plain building sense. When you start looking at the aspects of architecture in the large - the built environment, urban planning etc it may even have aspects which fit elsewhere.
I think every different aspect of architecture is subcatagories under Architecture. As is urban planning. Do not clutter them under categories they not really belong. Why on earth do anyone want that ?
Boy has this thread taken on some new lines of debate!
I think a case could be made for it to be located under Art as much as for it to be located under Engineering. I'm not an architect either, but the daughter of one (my non-architect parent being a librarian).
Like I said in the main thread. As an art historian I have lots of books that deal with both art and architecture to the same extent. Under the present classification system, I would have no idea where to put them.
>19 Suncat:: Which would mean we skip the top level category architecture altogether? Don't get me wrong, that would work for me. For similar reasons, I would also bring antiques into the fold.
>13 IaaS: Just a little reluctantly I am coming around to understanding your concerns, at least in some respects. The problem seems to lie in categories that spill over into several top-level categories. Most of my medical books will sit properly under the Science top level. Not all - there are books on medical history and medical politics which would wander off.
My view of Architecture as an interested layman is that much will fall under the heading of Design and that Design is OK under the wide-ranging Art top-level. Clearly there are books about building engineering which need an applied science / technology top level, but I can see why you might want to keep everything under one heading.
You write about running all over the bookshop to find different books. I would be happy looking in the Science section for my medical books (or even under a second level category of Life Sciences) but would then expect to find them under Medicine, not Biology, let alone Physics or Chemistry. As I understand it, however, what we are discussing here is a virtual arrangement of books which would have no effect on how any individual shelved their books and would be easily searchable in much the same way as we search for tags now.
Actually, we're talking about a new open classification system that libraries, particularly public libraries, could use instead of Dewey or Library of Congress.
>23 jjwilson61: Well, thanks for putting me right. So running around matters!
Putting Architecture under Engineering or art does not help at all. Most architecture books is not about that at all.
Urban space (Stadtraum); (http://www.librarything.com/work/61643/book/27539200)
Framtid for fortiden : pilotprosjektene Nusfjord, Røros & Stavanger;(http://www.librarything.com/work/4985315/book/27480508)
Bomiljø og farver : En debattbok; (http://www.librarything.com/work/4993298/book/27538835)
Regional tenkning : betingelse for god planlegging; (http://www.librarything.com/work/4999461/book/27588135)
Umweltbewu tes Bauen in verschiedenen geografischen Regionen; (http://www.librarything.com/work/4999420/book/27587785)
Discovering Traditional Farm Buildings
by J.E.C. Peters
The sources of modern architecture and design
by Nikolaus Pevsner
An Outline of European Architecture (Pelican Books)
by Nikolaus Pevsner
House Form and Culture by Amos Rapoport
Om at opleve arkitektur by Steen Eiler Rasmussen
Architecture Without Architects: A Short Introduction to Non-Pedigreed…by Bernard Rudofsky; (http://www.librarything.com/work/71836/book/27477982)
Just a few to state my point
Some of them are urban planning, some architecture history and many of them are architectural theory. When I go to a bookstore to look at architecture-books I can find them at one place and so I want it to be at a library too. There, and in my catalog, I do not want them spread all over. That for the practical view.
I was thinking the same thing. Where would you put a book on how to design a building that won't fall down. Strength of materials, calculating loads, that sort of thing. An architect may want to find it under architecture, but wouldn't an engineer want to find it under civil engineering?
Well, architecture is art, isn't it? Or at least it can be. In my mind art and architecture go together but are not identical.
"Art and Architecture."
The Architecture of Happiness
How on earth can you think Urban Planning has anything to do with enginering ? It is architecture, but we use engineers if we want to calculate something we have planned. Not the other way around. And architecture is not art at all. It is about planning the habitat. How people live and use the space they are given. Some of architectural objects can be seen as art because they are better than most. Architecture is not just making houses, it is making space for living. See ? When we need to calculate we call an engineer. Don't try to put my profession under another profession which is just one aspect of my subject.
Sorry I am a bit frustrated with you.
Think about this, if you go to a bookstore to find new books about architecture do you want to find them all over the place or simply under the sign Architecture ? What is the easiest way to find it.
Design is not a word that can contain architecture, but it is design in archiitecture.
It is not fair of me to say I was frustrated over you, when I really is frustrated over what I lack in English speaking. Sorry !
But they aren't the two options are they?
a) a top level architecture category
b) split architecture up so books are spread amongst a number of categories
c) put architecture under art (but all architecture topics remaining together)
d) put architecture under engineering (but all architecture topics remaining together)
In the current Dewey Decimal System Architecture is part of the Arts. Furthermore Civic & Landscape Arts (which includes Landscape Architecture) is not part of Architecture (it is in 710 and not 720).
Another related type of books I have trouble classifying : art instruction.
Should a professional book on the techniques of painting like this http://www.librarything.com/work/461570 go under "art", "crafts & hobbies", "technology & engineering", or perhaps even "education"???
I would say: Art>Painting>Instruction or something like that, but I realize only too well that's debatable.
>32 IaaS:: And architecture is not art at all. It is about planning the habitat. How people live and use the space they are given.
So how is that not art? I think we are - once again - faced with the linguistic problem of the many meanings of the word "art" itself.
I agree that a how to book would also go under art. In labeling things, I ran across a how to draw cats book and that is where I put it, I think everyone so far had also.
Definitions of art; (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art)
If you shoose an artdefinition where Architecture could fit in, altso engineering, crafts, and a lot of other things people make or do fits in.
As for urban planning, it is in fact one of the topics of the mastergrade-study in Architecture. Just as technology is.
Architecture > urban planning
Architecture > housing
Architecture> interior design
Architecture> landscape Architecture (landscape design, garden design)
(Engineers tecnologybooks is far more advanced, it's maths and physics)Architects-technology is an overview, the basics so we shall know when we can use tables or use an engineer.
Architecture > history
Architecture > philosophy
Architects do not have all the knowledge, but are the chefs.
;-) Yes, you could use that definition I suppose. But that doesn't mean it's the only one that's possible or usual.
For example - for our purposes I wouldn't include either music or literature, thought they are certainly arts as well. But that would - I fear - confuse people beyond measure. But you're right, I have a pretty broad view of what falls under "art" myself.
Anyway, if art is the process or product of deliberately arranging elements in a way that appeals to the sense or emotions then I still see no reason to exclude architecture. Surely architecture involves deliberate arranging and appeals to many of the senses.
And no music, litterature and poetry ?
Maybe art is not useful at all.
I agree with Tim, we need a lot at the top to make this useful. I stand by my wish to have architecture as a topname because it is PRACTICAL.
I guess my idea of art is closer to the French idea of "arts du dessin". Would people searching for literature in a library actually go looking under art? I don't think so.
You see, I do agree that PRACTICAL is what this is all about. It's just that we disagree on what actually is practical. You've explained why, and so have I... Ah well...
How's about - What we see - Art
What we hear -Music
What we experience via language - Literature?
We have the museum in Olso called;
"The National Museum of Art, Architecture and Design"
The name is for a reason.
the link; http://www.nationalmuseum.no/
>46 IaaS:: Doesn't that indicate that they agree that these are essentially the same category?
No they are related, but divided in three branches.
If they had been in the same category they could have called it the art-museum, but that was not the right thing to call it.
Okay, but they did get "combined" into one museum - indicating that these disciplines are much closer related to each other than to anything else. Which is sort of what I propose here.
By all means : the category could be named "art, architecture & design" or something like that - though I would prefer a shorter description.
And of course this top level category should be subdivided further. But it would provide a place for all the books that deal with more than one of those parts. There are lots of books that don't fit a top level distinction between "architecture", "art", "antiques and collectibles", and "photography".
Tecnology and computers is art, I can se them. (45)
Not necessarily. Just because something is doesn't make it art. If technology and computers go under art, why not physics and chemistry? (Doesn't calling physics an art make the distinction between art and architecture seem tiny?)
Greetings! David and I have been busy compiling and analyzing all your comments, and a post with new top levels is forthcoming!
In the interim, take a look on Thingology (http://www.librarything.com/thingology) at the summary of the OSC meeting we had in Denver last weekend.
To clear up some confusion, take a look at how facets/formats and categories/call numbers will be organized (this was determined months ago by this group):
(FACETS) (CALL NUMBER)
The first letter is audience (A, adult, Y, young adult, C, children's) The second letter is format (B, book, A, audio, G, graphic-novel, etc.) Other facets could be for whatever else needs to be called out—language, special collection, etc.
And so you have
AB 123.321 - Lost Moon
AA 123.321 - Lost Moon in an audio format
AG 123.321 - Lost Moon the graphic-novel
CB 123.321 - Goodnight Moon (children's book)
A library that had no childrens' books would ignore the first facet. A library entirely of Braille books would ignore the second. A library that wants to put all graphic novels together in one area may do so if they wish, or interfile them. Same with CDs, Audio books, etc. Facets allow for this flexibility.
In my opinion, a category for "design" which included the various design disciplines (architecture, type design, urban design, furniture design, web design, film production design, etc) would be a more effective categorization than the other proposals here.
I believe those disciplines to be much more closely related than seems to be assumed by some who argue against their combination. They all combine artistic or creative impulses with the need to manage complex practical requirements for fabricators and end users. While the work of designers can be STUDIED from the perspectives of art history, art theory, pedagogy, philosophy, sociology, psychology, geography, anthropology, linguistics, physics, or ecology, it can only be PRACTICED as a design problem in a holistic sense.
All designers consider beauty and elegance as important to their work (a consideration often made with, but not endemic to, the practice of engineering). But usability, economy of resources and durability are also fundamental considerations common across design disciplines (and dispensable to other disciplines such as theorizing or artistic production)
>55 Dystopos: So are you saying we should have "Art and Design" or "Art" and "Design"?
I say it again. In Oslo they have organized the museums of those closely related diciplines in; "The National Museum of Art, Architecture and Design".
In this organisation you will find 5 museums spread all over the town;
1) The Art Hall
2) The National Museum of Architecture
3) The Museum of Contemporary Ary
4) The Museum of Decorative Arts and Design
5) The National Gallery
All those museums has been made because it's about very different aspects of the disiplines.
"Decorative Arts and Design" is all about the history of furniture, things we use as decorations and householdarticles and the history of clothes and textiles.
"Decorative Arts and Design" could be a topname, side by side with the others.
55: Dystopos, Question; Would you dare call Leonardo da Vinci a designer ? I would not.
I think we're loosing focus of what this is all about. It's not about how we happen to perceive our professions. It's also not about classifying occupations or educations.
We are trying to find a way to classify actual books, in such a way that the general public would easily find them in a library.
I'm not insensitive to the differences between these subjects, nor for what they have in common. But the problem remains : where would one have to put books like Art and Architecture in Italy 1250-1400 - http://www.librarything.com/work/8966 - and/or Images of American Living : Four Centuries of Architecture and Furniture as Cultural Expression.
Such books simply don't fit a top category split between the visual arts, architecture, design, and decorative arts. If I we're a librarian working with the system as proposed, I would have no idea where to put them.
That is why I propose to use the fact that the visual arts, architecture, design, and decorative arts, are seen as related to each other. No, of course they're not exactly the same, otherwise they wouldn't exist as categories themselves. But they are a sort of "family" of subjects - much closer related to each other than to, say astrophysics or poetry.
Creating a common top level "art / architecture / design", or something like that, would provide a place for all those pesky books that contain info about more than one of these subjects - and there are many.
edited because of bad touchstone
>59 BarkingMatt: I agree that we should keep architecture in the top level. Even though I do agree with 55 to a point, the public isn't looking to find books on architecture lumped with books on fashion design, etc. If we had "Art and Design" (which is probably a little more accurate) people would probably look for, and consequently not find, the "Architecture" heading.
As for your book about Italian Art and Architecture, I think we may wish to create a lower level for the history of art and architecture. As for sub-levels of that, I am unsure. But then, we will deal with that in time.
It would not be helpful at all to call a toplevel "art and archirecture", maybee it is practical at home but not where it is hundreds of books. Then you must go thrue all to find the subject you want. It will be a lot of those books with more than one subject. Either you choose where to put it, the most obvious place hence the title, or you put the two subjects side by side with those mixed in between. Or maybee a colorcode visible at the book.
A lot of design is not art. Is the potatopeeler art, you will find it in the museum in "decorative art and design". You will not find the paintings of MUNCH there.
As for your book about Italian Art and Architecture, I think we may wish to create a lower level for the history of art and architecture. (#60)
As a single sub-subject, under Art, or would there be a sub-subject under each? If it's the former, would that mean the book I wondered about in the first post (Paul Frankl's Gothic Architecture) should be classified as Art?
61> If the top level were Art & Architecture then the second level could be split into A-Art and B-Architecture. Just because the top level has them combined does not mean that all the books on either subject will be jumbled together. The advantage to the top level being combined is that there is somewhere to put books that are about both subjects in equal measure.
>63 jjwilson61: : Exactly. Sure architecture and visual arts are different, but it would create a place to store books about both.
>62 AnnaClaire: I'm not exactly sure. I think maybe general subjects (Italian Art and Architecture, Gothic Art and Architecture, etc.) would go under a general "History" heading on the same level as "Art", "Design", "Photography", etc. Specific subjects (Gothic Cathedrals, Fiber Arts in the Early 20th Century) would go under a "History" heading in the specific category ("Architecture", "Art", respectively).
Unfortunately, this might create too many sections of history, especially when things overlap.
>61 IaaS: Why can't art be functional? I understand that a lot of "Design" students end up designing bottled drink labels and the like, but many one-off furniture designers create a lot of functional art pieces. And you wouldn't dare call fiber artists (many of whom create functional pieces) "designers" or say that their works are "potato-peeler art". Just a thought.
> 66: Yes, you could handle it that way but then history would become a humongous category. After all, there is also history of science, of religion, of mathematics, of philosophy, of politics, etc.
Plus it would probably mean that a book about gothic architecture would end up under architecture, a book about gothic art under art, but a book about gothic art and architecture under history. I think that would be even more confusing.
Art-history under art, architecture-history under architecture, car-history under technology.
If the car book is both about cardesign and technology then you will get the same problem; to decide where to put it. Just because some books are about more than one subject it is no reason to make a toplevel with both subjects. It will be so wrong for architecture, it is about so much more than your examples. In my favourite bookshop it would not be possible to find any arhcitecturebook with your suggestion. Look at Message 25: IaaS where I show typical examples of architectbooks. Books that I expect to find under architecture and altso does in the bookshops. They would drown among the artbooks.
And like I said you can place the architecture beside art and put the dobbelbooks in between.
The Architecture of Happiness by Alain de Botton seems to be "architecture theory"
(Paul Frankl's Gothic Architecture) is "architecture-history"
>67 BarkingMatt:,68 I meant a "History" section as a sub-level of "Art, Architecture, and Design". Note that I said this:
" . . . would go under a general "History" heading on the same level as "Art", "Design", "Photography", etc.
Perhaps I should say "History of Art, Architecture, and Design" to further illustrate that this one possibility I suggested would be only within the arts, and that the history of the (visual) arts would not get lumped with the rest of history.
>68 IaaS: "dobbelbooks"? What do you mean here precisely?
> 68 : I agree with art history under art, etc.
But I'm surprised you say you wouldn't be able to find books on architecture in a system that would be something like this:
Art / Architecture / Design
>> History of Art
>> Art Theory
>> History of Architecture
>> Architectural Theory
>> History of Design
>> Design Theory
Only the books that are about more than one of the subjects would somehow remain under the main heading.
And no music, litterature and poetry ?
Maybe art is not useful at all.
Perhaps Art is just too broad a term; and most people would consider music, literature and poetry to fall under the Arts. Since Music and other arts have their own categories, perhaps this one should be re-named Visual Arts, since that is more what people are thinking of - painting, graphic arts, that sort of stuff?
I don't think we have really tackled Applied Arts, either. Though I might have missed it, I haven't read EVERYTHING in this group yet :-)
All you Englishspeaking can't you find a better word, for all those human-made "things", than art. A word that can include music, theatre, circus, and the other subjects we have discussed. Even though poetry and litterature altso is an artform I think it is not to be included here, this is non-fiction stuff. What about the word "CULTURE", as an topheading or "FINE CULTURE"
> 75: Yes, there is a linguistic problem in that "art" can refer to all the arts (including literature, and music), but can also be used in a narrower sense as "visual arts". It's not just in English though, same goes for Dutch, German, French and Italian.
I think it shows a basic clue about western culture (at an earlier stage). Apparently when these words came into existence people didn't feel any urgency to distinguish between "all the arts" and "the visual arts". That's too bad, but we can't really correct the languages themselves here. I would argue that "art", when set beside those other art forms (as in this system), clearly refers to the visual arts.
And I wouldn't go using "culture". That's even broader and would draw in huge chunks of history, anthropology, religion, etc. And it would still also include literature, music, etc., so it wouldn't solve that "problem" either.
As for "fine culture" - I have no idea what that is. But I dislike the fact that it seems to incorporate a value judgment into it. Are we to separate "popular art" from "art" or something like that? And if so, what goes where and who decides? And would the public understand?
p.s.: you're not the only one here who has English as a second language.
> 74: I don't think we have really tackled Applied Arts, either.
There's also this thread - http://www.librarything.com/topic/55563. In my view they had better been combined, but what can you do...
I'm not sure about fine culture, but 'fine art' is a much-used term. The Chamber's Dictionary is, perhaps, relevant in the context of this thread:
fine art the aesthetically significant forms of art (now usu. defined as architecture, painting, sculpture and some graphic arts) as distinct from applied and decorative arts.
I wouldn't argue with that, but it shows what you get if you let lexicographers - those harmless drudges - in on the act.
>78 abbottthomas: I was thinking about this last night. If we used "Fine Arts" for this Music, Art, Performing Arts, etc. we could distinguish them from the other "Liberal Arts" (which include the maths and sciences and the "Language Arts").
Edit: fixed a typo
I agree with BarkingMatt - "culture" is way too broad a term.
"Fine culture" is not an expression in use in English to describe the sort of things we're discussing. (Sorry, Iaas!)
This topic is not marked as primarily about any work, author or other topic.