TY  - JOUR
AU  - Guyer, Paul
PY  - 2023
UR  - http://rifdt.instifdt.bg.ac.rs/123456789/3043
AB  - What might be meant by the phrase “architecture and philosophy”? I distinguish what it might mean from three other possi-bilities, “philosophy of architecture,” “philosophy as architecture,” and “architecture as philosophy.” The first refers to a subfield of academic aesthetics, itself a subfield of academic philosophy; the second to the use of architectural metaphors in philosophical writing; the third to the idea that works of architecture should express abstract, philosophical ideas. I discuss the pitfalls in the last of these. Instead, I argue, going back to Vitruvius, that the phrase “architecture and philosophy” should be taken to connote the architect’s obligation to satisfy through her build-ing ( firmitas) the program for her work, thus the client’s and users’ needs (utilitas) as well as aesthetic considerations (venustas), but beyond that to be sensitive to all ethical issues broached by her work and to have an understanding of the way or ways of life in which her work and its use will become involved.”
PB  - Beograd : Institut za filozofiju i društvenu teoriju
T2  - Khōrein: Journal for Architecture and Philosophy
T1  - Architecture and Philosophy
IS  - 1
VL  - 1
SP  - 17
EP  - 37
DO  - 10.5281/zenodo.7905093
ER  - 

@article{
author = "Guyer, Paul",
year = "2023",
abstract = "What might be meant by the phrase “architecture and philosophy”? I distinguish what it might mean from three other possi-bilities, “philosophy of architecture,” “philosophy as architecture,” and “architecture as philosophy.” The first refers to a subfield of academic aesthetics, itself a subfield of academic philosophy; the second to the use of architectural metaphors in philosophical writing; the third to the idea that works of architecture should express abstract, philosophical ideas. I discuss the pitfalls in the last of these. Instead, I argue, going back to Vitruvius, that the phrase “architecture and philosophy” should be taken to connote the architect’s obligation to satisfy through her build-ing ( firmitas) the program for her work, thus the client’s and users’ needs (utilitas) as well as aesthetic considerations (venustas), but beyond that to be sensitive to all ethical issues broached by her work and to have an understanding of the way or ways of life in which her work and its use will become involved.”",
publisher = "Beograd : Institut za filozofiju i društvenu teoriju",
journal = "Khōrein: Journal for Architecture and Philosophy",
title = "Architecture and Philosophy",
number = "1",
volume = "1",
pages = "17-37",
doi = "10.5281/zenodo.7905093"
}

Guyer, P.. (2023). Architecture and Philosophy. in Khōrein: Journal for Architecture and Philosophy
Beograd : Institut za filozofiju i društvenu teoriju., 1(1), 17-37.
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7905093

Guyer P. Architecture and Philosophy. in Khōrein: Journal for Architecture and Philosophy. 2023;1(1):17-37.
doi:10.5281/zenodo.7905093 .

Guyer, Paul, "Architecture and Philosophy" in Khōrein: Journal for Architecture and Philosophy, 1, no. 1 (2023):17-37,
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7905093 . .

TY  - JOUR
AU  - Guyer, Paul
PY  - 2019
UR  - http://journal.instifdt.bg.ac.rs/index.php?journal=fid&page=article&op=view&path%5B%5D=746
UR  - http://rifdt.instifdt.bg.ac.rs/123456789/1981
AB  - This paper compares the outwardly similar structural formalisms of Marc- Antoine Laugier and Arthur Schopenhauer (who uses many of Laugier’s examples). Laugier purports to base his aesthetics on an historical argument from the “primitive hut”; but his preferences are really based on aversion to structurally and programmatically non-functional elements. His preferences show disregard for purely aesthetic considerations, such as pleasing proportions. Schopenhauer’s formalism is based on his cognitivist approach to aesthetics, according to which architecture is above all supposed to demonstrate relations between load and support, but in spite of this shows greater sensitivity to sensory beauty.
AB  - Ovaj članak poredi naizgled sličan strukturalni formalizam Mark-Antoan Ložijea i Artura Šo-penhauera (koji je koristio mnoge Ložijeove primere). Ložije zasniva svoju estetiku na istorij-skom argumentu polazeći od „primitivne kolibe“, ali njegove preferenciju su ipak zasnovane na averziji prema strukturalno i programski nefunkcionalnim elementima. One otkrivaju ne-haj za razmatranja koja su čisto estetska, kao što su to proporcije koje izazivaju zadovoljstvo. Šopenhauerov formalizam zasniva se na njegovom kognitivističkom pristupu estetici prema kome bi arhitektura, pre svega, trebalo da demonstrira odnos između opterećenja i oslonca, ali uprkos tome pokazuje veću osetljivost za čulnu lepotu.
PB  - Beograd : Institut za filozofiju i društvenu teoriju
T2  - Filozofija i društvo/Philosophy and Society
T1  - Formalism around 1800: A Grudging Concession to Aesthetic Sensibility
IS  - 2
VL  - 30
SP  - 241
EP  - 256
DO  - 10.2298/FID1902241G
ER  - 

@article{
author = "Guyer, Paul",
year = "2019",
abstract = "This paper compares the outwardly similar structural formalisms of Marc- Antoine Laugier and Arthur Schopenhauer (who uses many of Laugier’s examples). Laugier purports to base his aesthetics on an historical argument from the “primitive hut”; but his preferences are really based on aversion to structurally and programmatically non-functional elements. His preferences show disregard for purely aesthetic considerations, such as pleasing proportions. Schopenhauer’s formalism is based on his cognitivist approach to aesthetics, according to which architecture is above all supposed to demonstrate relations between load and support, but in spite of this shows greater sensitivity to sensory beauty., Ovaj članak poredi naizgled sličan strukturalni formalizam Mark-Antoan Ložijea i Artura Šo-penhauera (koji je koristio mnoge Ložijeove primere). Ložije zasniva svoju estetiku na istorij-skom argumentu polazeći od „primitivne kolibe“, ali njegove preferenciju su ipak zasnovane na averziji prema strukturalno i programski nefunkcionalnim elementima. One otkrivaju ne-haj za razmatranja koja su čisto estetska, kao što su to proporcije koje izazivaju zadovoljstvo. Šopenhauerov formalizam zasniva se na njegovom kognitivističkom pristupu estetici prema kome bi arhitektura, pre svega, trebalo da demonstrira odnos između opterećenja i oslonca, ali uprkos tome pokazuje veću osetljivost za čulnu lepotu.",
publisher = "Beograd : Institut za filozofiju i društvenu teoriju",
journal = "Filozofija i društvo/Philosophy and Society",
title = "Formalism around 1800: A Grudging Concession to Aesthetic Sensibility",
number = "2",
volume = "30",
pages = "241-256",
doi = "10.2298/FID1902241G"
}

Guyer, P.. (2019). Formalism around 1800: A Grudging Concession to Aesthetic Sensibility. in Filozofija i društvo/Philosophy and Society
Beograd : Institut za filozofiju i društvenu teoriju., 30(2), 241-256.
https://doi.org/10.2298/FID1902241G

Guyer P. Formalism around 1800: A Grudging Concession to Aesthetic Sensibility. in Filozofija i društvo/Philosophy and Society. 2019;30(2):241-256.
doi:10.2298/FID1902241G .

Guyer, Paul, "Formalism around 1800: A Grudging Concession to Aesthetic Sensibility" in Filozofija i društvo/Philosophy and Society, 30, no. 2 (2019):241-256,
https://doi.org/10.2298/FID1902241G . .