Share this on Facebook
download .zip with all pictures
I agree with you completely.
Just for discussion though, here are some other buildings to look at
[Simmons Hall, MIT](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6b/Simmons_Hall,_MIT,_Cambridge,_Massachusetts.JPG)
Now obviously these are three very different buildings that serve three very different purposes.
The first is an art museum and I think that they did a fantastic job with it. It’s very thought provoking, creates interesting effects with lighting, and in general makes for a unique place to display art.
The second example is a dorm building at MIT, which in my opinion is not only a complete eyesore but a failure at its’ most essential purpose: comfortably housing people. From the Wikipedia article:
>Many of the residents of Simmons complain that aesthetics came as a higher priority than functionality. For example, residents in the “A” tower must take two different elevators, or must walk the length of the building twice (more than an eighth of a mile) to reach the dining hall because neither the “A” elevator nor “A” tower staircases reach the first floor, where the dining hall is located. Other oddities include staircases that do not offer access to every floor.
The third building is a famous Hindu temple in India; it’s an artistic marvel physically and creates an impressive space to perform religions functions.
I suppose then, that when evaluating artistic influence in architecture it’s important to make distinctions between the structure’s aesthetics and intended purpose, i.e. a building as a work of art is more effective when it strikes a balance between the ability to perform utilitarian functions and expresses the original intentions of the artists in an interesting and thought provoking way.