You should spend about 40 minutes on this task.
It is more important for a building to serve purpose than look beautiful. Architects should not worry about producing building as a work of art. Do you agree or disagree?
Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own experience or knowledge.
Write at least 250 words.
It is argued that instead of emphasising art and making a building look beautiful, architects should consider its serving purpose in the first place. I feel both aspects are equally important in the construction of a building.
On the one side of the coin, it is a fact that the intended user of the building has a vision about the building, and he expects the architect would never make him disappointed. For example, a company owner needs a large conference hall, which would accommodate 100 people. After assigning the task over to an architect, however after the completion of the building, if he finds that the conference hall can hardly accommodate 75 people, he would be definitely unhappy. Even if the hall looks beautiful, he would think that he spent his money unnecessarily. Instead, if the architect had concentrated the serving purpose more than his professional design, the company owner would have become happy.
On the other side of the coin, art is an integral part of an architect’s profession. To be clearer, an architect can hardly ignore art whatever the circumstances may be. Along with the basic calculations and safety, he needs to be recognised, and here comes the importance of the appearance of the building. This not only gives him pride and recognition, but also gives the building owner a higher sense of satisfaction and social status. However, if no importance is given to the appearance, the building would not stand out among those constructions nearby.
To conclude, it is clear that the purpose and the appearance of a building are equally important for an architect.