Architecture (f)or Art

Art and Architecture have always been terms of a very unique duo. Which one is the line that marks the invisible border between this two forms of expression? The intangible boundary becomes even more feeble as soon as the architecture is supposed to be the container of diverse forms of art. Container and content suddenly start melting together in an extraordinary relationship made of mutual interferences. The shell that hosts paintings, sculptures and art installations must establish a dialogue with art pieces and, when possible, it has to change its nature in order to adapt itself to new exhibitions to come. It doesn’t mean that architecture necessarily has to be malleable in a material way. Architecture could - and should - be continuously susceptible of different interpretations in terms of perceptions and feelings. After all one of the elements which contributes to link art and architecture is their status of expression of human spirit and mind beyond time limits. As suggested by Giulio Carlo Argan “whatever it may be the age of an art piece, it always represents something that happens in the present”. This sentence also points out the theme of art as a flowing component in our life, “something that happens”, which shouldn’t be relegated to the idea of “objects” to be stored in a sterile place. That’s why the dialogue between art and architecture could be the key to reread an ancient relationship in a new way, exploring the multiform interconnections that can enhance and enrich both elements. If we refer to architecture as a text this connection might be read as the conjunction between the two words, leading to the question which has introduced the whole topic: architecture (f)or art