A Conceptual Framework for Architectural Historiography

Architectural history used to be part of art history, but has been gradually distanced from the latter as architecture develops as an independent modern discipline. Despite debates on architectural historiography in recent decades, architecture as a unique type of historically situated aesthetic objects and design products has not been adequately addressed. To further an independence from art history, and to re-center architecture itself in historical analysis, this article highlights three essential natures of architecture which differentiate it from other types of aesthetic objects (such as painting and sculpture) and design products (such as cars and furniture), while asserting its situated materiality: architecture orders bodily activities and conditions human existence; it necessitates the integration of techne, technology, materials, and labor in construction; and it is a collective expressive medium which is shaped by and contributes to the interaction between different social forces. Based on the above propositions, this article provides an upgraded version of the Vitruvian Triad, with the existential replacing utilitatis (utility), the constructive replacing firmitatis (stability), and the interactive replacing venustatis (beauty).