Abstract
Beyond architectural theory and style, many factors affect the final outcome of a building’s layout and appearance. Finance, site considerations, climate and client preference all influence the design process, although it is the impact of law, the invisible web of regulation, constraint and requirement, that is perhaps the least evident yet the most significant. While law has been shown to be a major determinant is styles as varied as Georgian architecture and the American Art Deco skyscraper, recent developments in the courts have raised new issues affecting not just the final built form but the practice of architecture itself. This paper examines the inherent contradictions between the creative process that is fundamental to architecture and recent legislative enactments and pronouncements that were ostensibly created to protect that process yet can actually challenge its existence. Through its well meaning but flawed construction and enactment, coupled with inadequate interpretation and enforcement in the courts, existing legislation can actually inhibit the creative process and call into question the very meaning of originality in design. The paper explores these implications and concludes with an attempt to form a redefinition of the concept of orginality that serves both the strictures of copyright protection for designers while creating a clearer model of architectural originality that does not inhibit the creative exploration of new ideas.
Presenters
Robert GreenstreetProfessor and Dean Emeritus, Architecture, University of Wisconsin Milwaukee, Wisconsin, United States
Details
Presentation Type
Paper Presentation in a Themed Session
Theme
KEYWORDS
Originality, Creativity, Copyright Legislation, Design Process
