Blockchain Papers

Delphine Vincent

Ever since the premiere of Einstein on the Beach at the Avignon Festival in 1976, Philip Glass has been hailed for his audacity, and considered among the most prolific and successful contemporary opera composers. Among his works, the Cocteau trilogy challenges the traditional definition of opera as a genre in that his Orphée (1993), La Belle et la Bête (1994), and Les Enfants terribles (1996) are based on films. This unusual—and at the time very new1—choice of sources for opera was linked by Glass to the fascinating concept of “rethink[ing] the relationship of opera to film.”2 What is at stake when adapting a film into opera? What are the possibilities for adaptation and how do film-based operas differ from conventional operatic production? In order to answer these questions, I will focus on the adaptation process and identify the filmic components that remain in Glass’s operas. Given that film is formed of several medial elements (visual, sonic, literary), the result of the adaptation can vary significantly, depending on which aspects of the film are retained and which are edited out. Despite his operatic successes, Glass’s operas, like (post-)minimalist opera in general, have not been much researched. Robert F. Waters published in 2022 the first book dealing exclusively with Glass’s stage works from 1976 to the present day.3 His analysis, however, is based on different criteria from those presented here. This is also the case for the few existent articles on the operas of the Cocteau trilogy, which in general address only one work. As of today, the disembodiment of voice in La Belle et la Bête and the resulting issues of synchronization are the topics most discussed by musicologists.4 In this context, my focus on adaptation processes in film-based opera is new, even if I already addressed aspects of the topic in my previous work on Glass’s Orphée.5 Jean Cocteau (1889–1963), the French poet, playwright, novelist, designer, filmmaker, visual artist, and critic, is for Glass “one of the great writers of France.”6 Glass has known Cocteau’s cinema since his youth, although his published recollections vary. Sometimes he claims to have first seen Cocteau’s films in Paris in 1954 when studying French,7 at other times in the 1960s when working with Nadia Boulanger.8 In his recent memoir, Glass situates this discovery in Chicago, probably between 1953 and 1956, when studying at the University of Chicago.9 Whatever the date, it was a revelation: Of all these films, the ones dearest to my heart were those of Jean Cocteau–in particular, Orphée, La Belle et la Bête, and Les Enfants Terribles … . They must have become lodged in my mind, safe and whole, because in the 1990s, when I undertook a five-year experiment to reinvent the synchronicity of image and music in film, I chose these three films of Cocteau that I knew so well.10 What initially drew Glass’s attention to these three films as sources for operas was their themes: When I began work on the Cocteau trilogy, the first idea that governed my work was to bring out the underlying themes of the three films. They are best described as a pair of dualities–life/death and creativity being the first; and the ordinary world and the world of transformation and magic being the second. These topics are at the core of all three works and are explicitly put forward in the films. Whereas the first trilogy of operas (Einstein, Satyagraha, Akhnaten) was about the transformation of society through the power of ideas and not through the force of arms, this second trilogy from the 1990s revolves around the transformation of the individual—the moral and personal dilemmas of a person as opposed to a whole people or society. A corollary to this is the way in which magic and the arts are used to transform the ordinary world into a world of transcendence. These three films of Cocteau are meant as a discussion, description, and instruction on creativity and the creative process.11 Cocteau’s themes attracted Glass but were far from new in the world of opera: “The story of Orphée may be the most famous and widely set story in the history of opera. Monteverdi, Gluck, and Offenbach are the first few that come to mind. There are plenty of modern ones besides … . The themes of love, life, death, and immortality are, for theatre composers and authors, just about irresistible.”12 Although less known, there are also several operatic adaptations of the fairy tale Beauty and the Beast, mostly based on Jean-François Marmontel’s libretto Zémire et Azor (I am unaware of any opera based on Les Enfants terribles). It seems, therefore, that Glass’s interest was not sparked by the novelty or the contemporaneity of these topics but by the very personal way in which Cocteau approached them. One reason for his choice lay in Cocteau’s writing, as Glass explained: One of the things that drew me to these films of Cocteau is the pacing of his writing. If you look at it, it is truly Shakespearean. He knows when to introduce a character, he knows how to develop him, and he knows how many characters are needed. The real secret of writing operas is having a good libretto … . I chose the films of Cocteau because his sense of dramatic development was impeccable.13 Noteworthy here is the fact that Glass was attracted by the quality of the storytelling, understood in terms both of structure and of writing, in Cocteau’s films. It means that the literary aspect of Cocteau’s films was just as appealing as its visual or is for the in French in all three This to the very different in which film can opera. because Glass that of my to the three films was the Cocteau trilogy to be a case to the of the between film and opera in film-based The first of the Cocteau trilogy is based on Cocteau’s film Orphée and was in on Cocteau the by Jean to the not only to his but also to the is in with and out of the way with a his and the in Orphée in the as he is not to look at for the second is by of a poet, because published his by from the has been with the to Glass chose this film for all the out but he because it a personal his in I began writing Orphée … . for me to but at the time I was working on Orphée I idea I was my it has to do with I when I was about it on it, how it have been In the the the to he and he for I was in and it much on that I The of the Orphée film that attracted Glass was Cocteau’s Orphée, I the film and it like a The is not the of the is used to stage with the and The stage the film at Glass not the visual of Cocteau’s film and stage to The is different for because it is to the stage is at to to Cocteau’s visual or Glass’s not to the visual of Cocteau’s film not only the but also the of the As Glass he have to about the libretto to the It meant that he was in his writing, as he was not to to a This is aspect because time In the the is about that the Glass retained the visual the components of the film for Orphée was not for Glass’s The film music have been in one Glass the famous of Orphée et is a not to of the of the and the opera is a few times in the Glass have been the although it to from the of the Glass with the of the just as in his the fact that the visual and components of Cocteau’s film are from Glass’s opera that Glass have the opera even having seen the film, working only from its because Glass attention to the to of the “The only which from the film was the sense of the the I to the film in the opera. The from to very I between the In the the music but on is because of its but mostly because of the of which the Cocteau’s is for but his music not the of the The of Cocteau’s film is by the of a which not a In other aspects of the film which the work of the do not into the operatic In this Cocteau’s Glass’s creativity but the result is very the of the opera is that of the film is It in be to this of the film on the opera if unaware of Glass’s The film-based opera Orphée all on the literary of Cocteau’s Glass even that from the is in the from the is in the so in a real the libretto for the opera was by This the of a to opera on a literary In the not work with a a which its literary far less its to the of a Glass the I have to this of adaptation as opera by with the as the literary of a film, and for a adaptation Glass to a traditional to opera This idea is when at the to he Glass a great of is also in He is here by the to the of the opera. As the process of is it is to is edited out. As I have the process several One is to that the stage to Orphée … in … by this which is so for you to out These are not to not Cocteau’s visual The of the and the which from to a of not the stage It was a for I first the film I my do I with the how can I bring this and this What is at stake here is creative it is the or of filmic the As the and the are to Cocteau’s film, Glass not them. He has to for the in the In this way he power to the and is when be in the film for the second time when in the In the there is is about to when he around and at and second between is in cinema and on the operatic stage result in being or to It is not to that Glass that is to in the characters can into and to this as the … et … I and like Glass is also to the that of and The is of a to and to the of the Glass in the stage of Cocteau’s between the and the of the and the As a the opera the the film which a in the the for of means that Glass has to the film Orphée the the a at the Glass the and the of at the the Orphée the the film, Glass’s opera all the which in the in a so Glass conventional and operatic Glass is also with of to the In Cocteau of to the to the of the If this is not by as it has to be in order to the The in Cocteau’s film and a its to the In this Glass has to the writing and Orphée the of the et are a and a will on Glass also has to with used by Cocteau in his if the be in a operatic Glass to or when the Orphée Glass it out of the of la … this first into his to The is any of the time Glass the but when it is to the he it to a This only at the of the opera. The of the film of a must to and in the opera this is by the Glass also in He to the of which is not as opera characters In his is to for the three become a a which also that of the to his Glass not Cocteau’s but it out. of the that most of the or to in the in order to a libretto to operatic The result is opera that the like any other Glass’s to to a operatic Cocteau’s Orphée was for Glass a good and he not Cocteau’s film in order to develop a In this one Glass has not that he adaptation of Cocteau’s work. on his to Cocteau’s film, he was to the novelty of his The second of Glass’s Cocteau trilogy is based on Cocteau’s film La Belle et la Bête and was in on Cocteau fairy Belle by is a good not to and like and When that is Belle only for a he it in the and is to by the Belle to his The but is by Belle even if of When is the to and to into the to it and its is the process and the Beast, Belle at the with and from his into a he with his into his Glass’s opera for and film a different from In La Belle et la Bête, Cocteau’s film is as a the the film and the are in of the Glass’s music In La Belle et la Bête, Glass the visual and literary components of Cocteau’s film but retained of the this work challenges the very of and the great between and He explained: to … but I I can to bring film from the world to the world of and at the time to the traditional of opera and cinema was not Glass’s only He also to opera: to to bring a very traditional to in times … . just are, to opera of the opera composers were for contemporary composers were as in The of based on the of the by the in of attracted is in (1993), and in to the and in of of in Glass’s to opera is Beauty and the is a fairy but the is In Glass’s La Belle et la Bête, it is the operatic that is As Glass this way of opera and cinema the This and that the for the first was They the film and the but it that for to that the of the become the of the on the There was a and it at at into the film, the There be a of when that that the and the into a and that way through to the of the and the image of the As of between the operatic voice and the between the and between stage and this of traditional between the voice and the as the and in and from traditional of and working on Glass’s La Belle et la Bête on this disembodiment of the Among it to a of Cocteau’s film in this … to the that the is by the characters of a of this Glass’s opera to of and which is through the of the that to music a that Cocteau has with his of In even if Cocteau and that music was to not only Cocteau’s general but to with dramatic and of They a of themes and in the development of the … . His are not used to but to that and of the that Belle for the Glass of the but linked it to traditional opera I to of the in traditional operas a is linked to a when a their music is This is the traditional operatic of There was a for Belle and a for La There was a for when are and for when As the opera those themes was the of the The of his it that Glass is that used the in his film Glass has much with the film not to that are very in films as music have been as much a for this aspect of Glass’s as operatic In to this one of the is as When Glass to the of the the however, the of the from the film was in Glass’s and it a between and The is here from film to from to and the voice is as a of the the Glass’s on his of traditional operatic his to to bring film from the world to the world of the of have this The result is that Glass seems, to with those of film music as even the a of a film and its with is As I have already time and so must be to the to when the filmic in a film a so is however, because it will result in which is as a in As Cocteau’s Belle was good choice for operatic adaptation because it has Cocteau’s is much by one This is for operatic adaptation in terms of the of the Cocteau’s film is already with music by used mostly for and much for operatic “The time of the between the in their to the time of to that of the to the between the and In the of depending on which is The of from is and The Beast, by Glass is not with the of for if Glass was with he was also that a film is dealing with It my time working on in Paris in the 1960s … been I I knew from those that the synchronization of image and not have to be In all that was was a good of synchronization to the This a of in the on the I also knew that with as or in and with the being were the best for those Despite this Glass was to there is a with Glass’s memoir, he claims that he the of the Cocteau the of in Orphée and of in Les Enfants that it be to from the was were Glass’s and the fact that the film is in to that all the are A look at the however, that this is not the The are in Orphée but Glass’s on his to Cocteau’s film is a way of the novelty of his and his in the of so many Glass however, to the of to the is not the the He out by a in the et you and I will and this Glass but it is to this the as is when He the result when a is by is not seen when are on have been because a is in of Glass to that the is when from as Belle when me (I my I you to to this Glass’s of me is A case is La Bête only his are being et A … A … … The you to remain have my and you will … … one of … . many do you Glass the of aspect of also Glass to out in the the of the characters be It is not to the on their Belle and La Bête are in the and seen in a Belle la Bête, et me (I am not Beast, and I a with In Glass’s me if Glass was not to out by characters in for when into the previous the he when one has to that Glass not of the possibilities by or characters only to He also used to that are by different characters in the and are at the of the that and la do In Glass’s Glass not only a few but also all the to This time to develop his This process a few for the are in Cocteau’s out is a means of synchronization it also for the visual of Cocteau’s La Belle et la Bête is the literary even with the film being Glass’s La Belle et la Bête a new way of opera by it to the of film and it The of the trilogy, Les Enfants was in on It is a opera based on Cocteau’s which was into film by the and by in Cocteau was to film his to a film of the Les Enfants terribles The book its and his … . I my when to it He was new, not with … . He to to not the Les Enfants terribles the story of the by and are to as their is and their is with a by a with a is to to and the he with his the of their They the in which the is the one has the and are is by the and a of time with them. their the to the with and his When a as a and is the image of a their The into by that he is in with but to his As is also in with to and to for the he with This many but its is a of by the to into and In Les Enfants Glass’s is different from the previous operas of the Cocteau my of this film as I to introduce into the was the only of that not been addressed in the trilogy and was the one with which I the most working Glass to develop a new adaptation for opera of the trilogy and this one was very as the film not It meant that the visual be and one the literary to be because the way the story is to the on the other Les terribles I was If you the was the for by I to do a and I three In the film, is of by as it was the in The film music the to the are by only three Glass’s music is different from It however, with writing, mostly the which forward This is not as used to in Cocteau’s forward with its and different Glass’s music a of if Glass’s from the work of Jean the previous that Glass with the film the as the film music is the on his writing and was from the It is not that the music of the film on In film, the is mostly in or with Cocteau’s is it is very and When to a Glass to and to the His in with the and is the of characters being to and The the the the the the of the and even are edited out. This of the of characters means that to be those by in the opera by Glass only the both the and In Glass film and not Cocteau’s on the on his and to the is a … that to it He that have to and to of the of as the film, Glass is to for and is a a a and a Glass and also the to the and the the in and which is already in Cocteau’s and described as with the of the of this of the in the the quality of Cocteau’s There are also many in the of the but there is Cocteau’s as in Orphée, In the to be the in the opera with the first of the film la you to the are from the of the he a to to with this this Glass and to the to a The with the as the film to I is This of was by a in the as to a on the is a and is by and for his In the of characters means that are not only a but also from one to In Cocteau’s film, of the and the with As the not in the Glass and have to A la et … was between and in the is to the very of the Despite the Glass and most of the by Cocteau in the film, the and of the characters or even is to It means that Glass not the as in Orphée, which out most of the This is probably linked to the to of the film is first by a by three which for one the the work is on different from the It is like film, like being a and a answer even you have or three in Les Enfants terribles to that in time just you one answer from so many that come to mind. It is a of the there are possibilities when the characters this the presented as and a of voice of of The and of the like the of characters and is to Glass’s in Orphée and a Les Enfants terribles however, different in the because of the to Glass and of the characters and their In into the opera a of In the film, remain on the a it to the of the other mostly and do not the of the is this and the of the is to and The the of of the and in the opera the do the When with his French his idea of operas on Cocteau’s films, Glass to Cocteau from the of being a and a because he he and he His answer he was was at one different This also to Glass’s film-based opera: his Cocteau trilogy the many possibilities for adapting a film into opera. The of film components to composers. on which elements are and which are edited the for the are the film as in La Belle et la Bête a for the which is not the case when the visual is as in Orphée and Les Enfants The way the adaptation is is also as the are not Glass’s adaptation of Cocteau’s Orphée that can be used to all the elements that are in conventional operatic Glass’s different to the in Orphée and Les Enfants terribles that different adaptation for film It is not to will be from the film in a film-based opera and in the film will be present in the opera. This to a for the The terms and based on very different a of operas this the that can be the very different in which Glass the three films the of them. What is at stake for the is not the depending on the adaptation and the of is It is for this reason that I the of in film-based and for the of the The is even in that film-based operas in different As Glass La Belle et la Bête the film … or it can be with the film in which I the of the with the of the of the people on the When Glass’s La Belle et la Bête is the film it a opera. It is however, with Orphée, which was if the visual of Cocteau’s film is not present in this new of Glass’s La Belle et la Bête, it the way Glass the A of the for in the operas into the Glass was can also of a film-based opera: stage of Orphée to Cocteau’s film, for at the in or even from the film, as at the in These the that Glass’s was to visual to Cocteau’s This is not the as very when at the of the that were As for Les Enfants it is not as a as in in in The of or of these three operas is on the of Orphée that Glass’s opera is it is because it the fact that the film is in a way as to a traditional operatic This aspect is also the and Glass’s to opera. The of his La Belle et la Bête challenges the very idea of opera The the film a conventional of opera and in the way to the Glass presented his Cocteau trilogy as of of the between cinema and This and the for film to opera and many for its many composers have this in the of the Cocteau trilogy of the 1990s a fascinating new of opera is et in at with a and a film contemporary opera and French music and opera is the of into to la la and et has edited et la on and Les la I am to for of my

Larry Shiner

As costly and spectacular art museums have proliferated since the opening of Frank Gehry's Bilbao Guggenheim, some critics have complained that “flash and bravura win out over contemplation…and architecture triumphs over art.”1 Hal Foster has even declared that museums like Gehry's Bilbao “inflate the contemporary museum into a gigantic spectacle‐space that can swallow any art, let alone any viewer, whole.”2 The problem is not that bold exteriors outshine the art, but that strange curves, odd angles, or enormous heights inside may generate a “spectacle‐space” that interferes with our attention to the art.3 For example, a number of the acutely angled gallery walls of Daniel Libeskind's 2006 Denver Art Museum addition slant inward or outward in ways that many people have found intrusive. But other critics have been willing to overlook functional defects in favor of audacious formal qualities, even if not all would go as far as Phillip Johnson's “if the architecture is as good as in Bilbao, fuck the art!”4 These conflicting responses to dramatic art museum architecture seem to reflect two deeper intuitions about architecture in general: it seems only natural to expect aesthetics and function to complement each other in architecture, yet it also seems natural to overlook functional defects when aesthetic qualities are outstanding. In this article, I will suggest a way to reconcile these two intuitions by outlining a perspective I call “moderate functionalism.” Moderate functionalism tries to avoid the faults of two polar positions on aesthetics and function in contemporary philosophy of architecture. One position, going back to Roger Scruton's Aesthetics of Architecture and recently updated by Edward Winters, accepts the necessity of function in general but denies the aesthetic relevance of particular functions, a position that would justify those who give priority to formal audacity in art museum architecture.5 At the opposite pole, Glenn Parsons and Allen Carlson's “functional beauty” proposal would make aesthetic appreciation directly depend on a building satisfying its “proper” function, a position that would support those who champion the priority of a museum's exhibition functions.6 In what follows, I criticize both the separatist and functional beauty approaches and then show how a moderate functionalist position can unite the intuition of a desirable concord between aesthetics and function and the intuition that spectacular aesthetic achievements may override functional faults. Before beginning a critique of the separatist and functionalist beauty positions, I need to outline some preliminary assumptions. The first is that the aesthetic experience of architecture is not only about the contemplation of visual form, but is also multisensory and immersive, involving the volumes, textures, and sounds that determine how a building feels as we move through it.7 Of course, we do experience many buildings only visually from the outside. In fact, the “spectacle” art museum controversy has arisen partly from the desire of some museum boards to have an iconic building whose external appearance will draw paying crowds. The importance of such issues as iconicity and symbolism suggests that our concept of aesthetic experience also needs to include a cognitive dimension. The cognitive aspect of aesthetic judgment seems especially appropriate to contemporary art museum architecture, which includes not only sculptural designs (Gehry, Zaha Hadid, Libeskind) but also works influenced by conceptual art (Elizabeth Diller and Ricardo Scofidio) or deconstruction (Peter Eisenman), whose formal and sensory satisfactions may be less important than the way they embody certain ideas. Like the concept of the aesthetic, the concept of function is not only unsettled but is also inflected by its application to architecture.8 Early modernists sometimes interpreted Louis Sullivan's “form follows function” to refer to “structural” function (form should reflect construction), at other times to refer to “practical” function (form should reflect human needs). But architecture theorists have also written of many other architectural functions: urban, environmental, social, ethical, symbolic, even aesthetic.9 The fact that there are many kinds of functions means that aesthetic and practical functions are almost always found intertwined with other functions, among which the symbolic and social are especially important for art museum architecture. Symbolic functions obviously concern architectural meanings, whether understood in terms of “exemplification,”“allusion,” or in some other way.10 Historically, one of the most important symbolic aims of art museum architecture has been to express the value of art itself. In the nineteenth century, this concern gave us those familiar classical temple forms with their grand stairways, spacious reception halls, and sumptuous materials, whereas today's “spectacle” museums try to send similar messages by means of radical shapes, dramatic massing, acres of glass, and unusual materials. Social functions in architecture concern the way buildings affect such things as our sense of well‐being, our sense of place, or the quality of human interactions within them. Arthur Danto has called attention to the way Steven Holl recently designed a stairwell in a faculty office building at New York University to invite chance meetings, thus creating “a remarkable aesthetic experience while solving a sociological problem.”11 When these kinds of social concerns inform specific practical functions in the design of schools, hospitals, or museums, spaces for teaching, healing, or exhibition can be transformed into something far richer than a neutral means to an end.12 This blending of social and practical functions also calls attention to their normative dimension, which has been so effectively described in different ways by Karsten Harries and Yuriko Saito.13 The normative dimension of functions is what makes us ready to criticize an otherwise aesthetically and symbolically exciting building for failing its practical or social purposes or, to criticize an otherwise functionally efficient building, for its sterility and lack of aesthetic vitality. With these general considerations in mind, we are in a better position to examine the separatist view that aesthetic and practical functions should be treated as simply parallel to each other. Roger Scruton and Edward Winters, reacting to extreme versions of “functionalism,” have claimed that a building's specific functions are irrelevant to its aesthetic appreciation.14 Scruton goes so far as to declare that the very idea of function is “fundamentally, and perhaps irremediably, obscure,” so that “all we can say … is that buildings have uses.”15 Moreover, both he and Winters believe that even if we could somehow get a clearer concept of function, it would not make any difference since a building's functions are liable to change with time.16 What remains most important for Scruton is “to find meaning in appearance itself,” so that “aesthetic considerations … must take precedence over all other factors.”17 But the separatist approach cannot do justice to the fact that most architects’ aesthetic choices take into consideration practical and other kinds of functions in the process of design, so that a particular set of functional concerns becomes embodied in architectural form. Major encyclopedic art museums, for example, are likely to have specialized spaces for a variety of practical functions, such as reception (entry halls), exhibition (galleries), or halls), whose architectural forms will have also been for social, symbolic, and aesthetic The specific practical functions of and for example, are dramatic such as for the or for the Art whose architectural forms not only aesthetic responses but also at the a of from the even as they symbolic similar of aesthetic qualities with social, and symbolic functions in the museum gallery the between the and as we move from the and architectural has to the less dramatic forms and spaces may be to a for a for art not that the architecture as in with design for the in New architectural forms should be aesthetically in ways that complement the art even as those forms a for and aesthetic I believe at this of the social, and aesthetic of gallery design when he neutral works of art as as spaces that make the building into a of In for example, one through its dramatic the of the for seem like an Libeskind's radical in Denver sometimes with the art for our go to the other extreme and an aesthetically less for than for The between the aesthetic and practical functions for gallery architecture can be to what has about the halls, such as in or Frank Gehry's in their designs to of an experience architecture by means of the as the are for the quality of their so the gallery designs make of natural to the experience of for example, Louis for the for the Steven walls for the Museum or for the museum in that give it a and In what to be an to this of aesthetic and practical concerns in gallery design, the Frank who so to the function of to in has as the idea that museum architecture should be and not with the the Bilbao museum's than a with a by and be a “spectacle‐space” to swallow almost in this is not the at also designed a number of for and and sculptural for contemporary and of the at Bilbao are are most of intrusive. In the design of the Bilbao Guggenheim, practical and social concerns in aesthetic and symbolic even if he not always a that I believe the of the functional in museum the of separatist and approaches that particular functions in aesthetic practical and other functional aims may as external to a have into their design, they to the to the way the external of a becomes of the of the would be as to the of a of architecture to the of practical and social functions in its forms as it would be to an extreme functionalist that in a should be by its The separatist position, the moderate functionalist approach I have been aesthetic judgment by the aesthetic function of forms from their practical and social Of course, a separatist to the idea of embodied functions, beginning with Scruton's and that since a building's practical functions may change with we are better them. from the that there is some “aesthetic that can be from a building, this the fact that through or the formal and sensory of many buildings may also change over so that involving practical functions are in this than formal a separatist that we may not be to whether the concord between the aesthetic and practical functions of a museum's art is to the design or to choices the of how to and so it is that a may make of an architectural designed for art or a designed for art, in most it is not to out the architectural choices from the One of the Denver for example, Libeskind's that the a of of the function as as they their When the Denver museum first in for example, by from the walls and to be from their on the walls by of on the When I the museum two these been by on the walls to to and on the to at a if one accepts these there remains a to the idea of embodied practical functions: the fact that many important art museums have been in and in which it would be to that we something about the of practical and aesthetic functions from the way the buildings the of many buildings for as art museums have been to make to But even in have been as at or even if one to a building into a museum at our judgment of the aesthetic qualities of the building in its would be by how the aesthetic and practical have been Of course, our attention in such would from the choices of the to the architectural choices of those for a museum in this particular At this a separatist or the by that aesthetic simply are about formal and sensory and the to make is the to responses to aesthetic from responses to like or to like and some be willing to the moderate functionalist that we can make the way practical functions have architectural but they would that these cognitive only concern and are irrelevant to aesthetic would that if we are to justify the of embodied functions in aesthetic we must make aesthetic only one of an judgment or the of aesthetic judgment in a way that these the of aesthetic responses only one of an judgment would aesthetic and practical functions they what we to is whether practical achievements or defects in a of architectural art can into the process of aesthetic itself. recently versions of to this by on our to than to works of art, and both in idea of I will on the position of Glenn Parsons and Allen since they not only make architecture a concern but also to Scruton's the concept of function by as the of can our to a building or an be by of its and the of can we the “proper” function of a building or an to the of on idea of of to that in the of how function us to different aesthetic qualities in of approach seems to show some for with architectural since spaces for and art have been for a so that one idea of forms to the of iconic art museums like Gehry's Bilbao or Libeskind's Denver addition and say that their or may be as an aesthetically or an aesthetically when it to the appearance of such it would seem to determine which forms are for an art museum for many other building so that are of value in at an aesthetic Parsons and Carlson's to Scruton's that the concept of function is also since they to be to determine a building's function” by to a concept on the function of an is some in the that it to a need in the in its In addition to some with the of it seems for architectural designs like art One is that Parsons and seem to architectural works as if they could have only a For example, in the controversy over the in as an but for its lack of formal in the as if the must be in that its “proper” function is to or the architecture critics must be in its “proper” function is to make a bold Parsons and that it may be so to the function in many that it will the of and social and even then it is what the of may But in the of building like art museums, we can to of the art that there is in fact function that has been by The functions of art museums have been since their in the of with and in the of art, and a for aesthetic Moreover, over priority among these functions has been going on since the beginning and of the for any one function as the function of an art museum seem some functions are obviously than for example, functions like or contemplation all depend on the functions of and architectural works like art museums a than like function” can the of both the separatist and functional beauty we are with an of how aesthetic art museums can include social, and symbolic functions and we need to show in what way a practical or can an aesthetic or in an architectural that I will first to idea of of a judgment of beauty for is a to the of the as in a of the and a judgment of beauty a concept of the that what the is to One of of a judgment of beauty concerns architecture, our to a that would be to our intuition could be to a building, “if only it not to be a When that such of beauty are not aesthetic some have how they could be aesthetic at the he on the of and But seems in this to of a that in a judgment of the concept of a not but the of the to of a the of a as a of which architectural forms can us but it not determine in any particular that would the needs of have interpreted of a or as external and that we first take of an as an of its found it to its we then it as have interpreted of beauty as an of a judgment on in the of to a judgment on a in of these that a building is of a certain us to expect that it will the functions of that if it we may go on to its formal But when a building its functions we may find our in its to the building's the and the of of beauty do make function to aesthetic by a both to the separatist position we are to What we need is an of of beauty that can show how function can be a of the process of aesthetic Of the of idea of beauty that for a I find most that of in on and For aesthetic judgment in general attention to all the of an as these are in the of and In a judgment of this of our experience is on the form, but in a judgment of such as aesthetic or the are into an … of the on we an as a the that make it a of its are to be aesthetically aesthetic In of an practical purposes do not judgment from the or get with in an way but also are an of a process of are the appropriate of what I have to as embodied as must practical and other functions with their aesthetic so those who the building must to and other or, in to the aesthetic function” of the Of course, by of or into the of and such are and can to But the of a concept such as beauty is to make for a of aesthetic judgment that the of like social, and symbolic are aesthetic in the sense that they are of are they that directly a general can be into a aesthetic judgment of architecture so as function is in to be in with the other it seems to is what when we take in the way the inward walls of Steven for addition to the Museum are at one and the forms and of natural who is otherwise to concept of that to the specific functions of building into aesthetic may find I believe is the problem of the of seems for any approach to aesthetic judgment that a cognitive Moreover, the of a to the is than for by the of a of beauty that as to take into than those that an simply “a good of its I would that we should not the of aesthetic, and other functions of a particular museum in a way that it as an of the general building art but always move to the appropriate of The kinds of architectural forms that would the function of a museum like the in with its of are likely to be different from the forms appropriate to the New Museum of Art in New York or to a museum such as the Museum in The need to take into the of functions appropriate to different kinds of art museums means that the of beauty I to be by the that “all are preliminary on an of beauty is a there may be in the way people in the aesthetic judgment of a of architecture, one they cannot they cannot give the specific practical functions of a building in an aesthetic This to may seem a especially since at the very of of seems to the out from not only an view of practical functions in aesthetic judgment but even from the and that a through of an or by from such a as if it is to out that when we are of a building's we are when we a strange or are likely to to a of architecture as form. But other that even when we what the function is we may from while also seems to with the idea of could be as the of aesthetic and practical functions, a to the social, and symbolic functions of a of architecture whereas I have that the idea of beauty that a cannot such functions have ways to as with idea of I in the way it a of the other intuition about works of architecture that I at the beginning of this and to which we must our I there that our intuition that aesthetic qualities and practical functions should be in architecture, we seem to have an natural intuition that some buildings are aesthetically so that we may their appearance their practical One way of this other intuition is by to the between architecture and building, by the art is a is architecture. architecture only to buildings designed with a view to aesthetic a similar in some of on architecture, that as of the human is not “a so functional is not on the he designed for in he that in of its satisfying and practical it what he called In these seems to the architecture building to an even than “aesthetic the has interpreted the building architecture as one between and architecture, for which he the of the and the of one of the we have the a and to … at at the other we have the which and us with buildings or are by who as with their to a of practical and aesthetic on the other are designed by who as the of who are us the most spectacular of The problem with the is that most have at some aesthetic and most or works of have some so that the to be an as a the of architecture and building may have some for or to it as for practical functions in the aesthetic judgment of works would simply make practical functions irrelevant by Gehry's or Libeskind's Denver Museum addition may so us by their and that we may be to some of their practical faults. But that is very different from that their specific function of art is irrelevant to in the of “spectacle” or architecture, we need to the that “all are when we a of aesthetic, symbolic, social, and practical as for aesthetic of course, the of works like the the or which we as of architectural art that can be simply as of even they may be for some even their I believe it will us how a functional in a of architecture can to an aesthetic judgment and how a similar functional in a different may not in an judgment by the problem of the between defects and aesthetic For many like functional have been irrelevant or at to from aesthetic At the other pole, the position sometimes called that a in a of art is always an aesthetic and should to a aesthetic What calls “moderate both that an may in certain an aesthetic In a for example, a may try to the that a with a but the is something with the of the has not been designed on its As this of aesthetic to a of art is the of an of many of the not simply the of a or But as it is to at an aesthetic in some it is also to at an in other in which a when all things are defects that are by its other such as formal approach to and aesthetics the of of beauty that I to a similar of practical and formal in an aesthetic is I have called perspective on architecture “moderate “moderate The moderate functionalist not the in aesthetic and practical functions as but the moderate functionalist “functional beauty” in that the aesthetic of an must be in terms of how they a “proper” a moderate functionalist a judgment about a of architecture that is aesthetically exciting but it will be the to embody its practical functions the of its formal and other aesthetic the moderate functionalist is also ready to that a of architecture to all things are defects that are by its other such as formal architecture, of course, will into the of what called the but buildings are less important or of for their aesthetic in aesthetic with practical and other functions than is the spectacular building that so us with that we what it to as a in a or remains a the aesthetic so a practical and social in a of architecture remains a practical and social even when we that it is by aesthetic In I to to the two of spectacular art museum architecture with which I The sculptural and the of its are not only aesthetically but also the symbolic function of important for our the aesthetically of the of its for art are appropriate to the kinds of art each is to In the Bilbao museum's aesthetic and symbolic could be as for the practical of a of its gallery In the of Libeskind's Denver on the other a that is aesthetically and symbolically as a the walls of of its with their exhibition function in ways that have many aesthetic judgment of the there are a the museum's and walls complement particular contemporary in many other the architecture on the art in Libeskind's Museum in and symbolic that give meaning to its aesthetic and for its functional as an exhibition the Denver symbolic and aesthetic not seem to for its practical As these aesthetic of the “moderate will not only kinds of functions into the process of aesthetic but there will also be in the that may be to each the of such not into but to about how a museum's functions have been in the In can an appropriate aesthetic judgment practical functions as irrelevant in the museum's aesthetic as the separatist approach would on the other can one that there is a “proper” function that should be the in the aesthetic judgment of a museum In this I one can both our intuition of a desirable concord between the aesthetic and practical of works of architecture and our intuition that some works are aesthetically so that we may their practical faults.