Point: Theories

Throughout the proliferation of mankind, architecture has served as a testament to its respective time, culture, and technological stature. Changes concerning the methods and symbolism behind architectural design has always compensated for the change in culture. In short, architecture has served to reflect periods of history much like the rings of a tree.
In class, we were presented with a question that challenged the artistic definition of architecture. Why was architecture a significant and unique style of art in respect to all other forms? Unlike other artistic pieces that serve as mementos for expression and individual recognition, architecture fulfills both a utilitarian and aesthetic purpose. Not that it undermines the significance of the other forms of art, but it definitely satisfies a niche other forms are incapable of filling. Because architecture must be both functional and aesthetically pleasing, the two are often meshed. Whether the culture at the time places emphasis on power, beauty, status, or size, the popular belief and preference will ultimately have an impact on its architecture, breeding design movements as those beliefs evolve.
It has been generally assumed that the success of architecture is completely dependent on three interrelated terms- Vitruvius's firmitas, utilitas, and venustas ( Firmness, commodity, and delight). Because they are the conceptual foundation of appropriate architecture, neglecting anyone of these would ultimately yield a flawed design. Also, the fact that the terms come packed as a complimenting trio reinforces the notion of the power of three, its significance widely emphasized in lecture. There's something about the symmetrical number that satisfies something within our psyche, it's presence found throughout literature (three wishes; three little pigs; three muses; etc.) and existing basic structures (protein, fat, carbohydrates; electron, proton, neutron; past, present, future; etc.). Whatever the reason, it's influence and impact on architecture has been, and still is, profound.
As culture and technology evolved, so did the definitions and expectations of the three terms. Stemming from the first small shrines and houses, or aediculas, design movements warped people's perspectives concerning the appropriate nature of each term. What exactly was considered firm, commodious, and delightful? Well, we can start by applying the term trio to prehistoric times before these concepts were conscientiously understood. Stonehenge, an ancient monument located in the English county of Wiltshire, is one of the most widely recognized sites in the world. Although the original intention of construction is still somewhat unknown (though widely presumed to be a site of worship), according to popular belief, its firmness and delight were successfully achieved. Because the monument was built out of stone and not wood, it was capable of lasting thousands of years. Concerning its delight, tourists often describe a paralytic, overwhelming feeling when they stand before the artifact, a feeling that probably resonated with its original founders.
At the height of Beaux-Arts movement in the early 20th century, technology and styles of design had changed from colonial times. With the industrial revolution and its mass production of iron and glass coming to fruition, an era of large, ornate buildings came into existence. Complimenting size, many designs reverted to a neoclassical style of beauty, a radical shift from what was considered appropriate in 19th century United States. The flexibility of the terms, however, were clearly articulated with these changes.

http://www.metropolismag.com/cda/