In art school, it was about feeling. In architecture school, it

Host: The calm of the evening settled in, the quiet of the room providing space for deep thought. Jack sat at the table, his fingers lightly resting on his cup, reflecting on Elizabeth Diller’s words. Jeeny stood near the window, her gaze turned inward, considering the difference between feeling and ideas in the context of both art and architecture.

Jeeny: “I’ve been thinking about what Elizabeth Diller said: ‘In art school, it was about feeling. In architecture school, it was about ideas.’ It’s such an interesting distinction, isn’t it? The way art and architecture are approached differently—art seems to be about emotion, about expressing what’s inside, while architecture is more intellectual, focused on concepts, plans, and function. It’s almost like art is about personal expression, and architecture is about problem-solving.”

Jack: “Yes, exactly. Diller is highlighting the shift from subjective to objective. In art, you’re encouraged to explore and express your feelings and emotions, to create something that resonates personally and emotionally. It’s about what you want to say and how you want to say it. But in architecture, that subjective approach is often replaced by a more structured and intellectual process, where the focus shifts to the ideas behind the design—the function, the space, the purpose of the building itself. The challenge in architecture is to create something that works, both practically and aesthetically.”

Jeeny: “Right. Architecture takes into account a broader context—the environment, the purpose of the structure, how people will interact with it. It’s not just about what the architect feels, but about how the design will serve others and respond to the needs of the space. Art, on the other hand, can be more about personal exploration and self-expression. You can be freer in art, whereas in architecture, there’s a responsibility to consider the functional and practical aspects of the design, which takes it out of the purely emotional realm.”

Host: The stillness in the room grew as they both reflected on how the two disciplines approach the concept of creation. Jack’s fingers rested on the table, while Jeeny’s expression softened as she considered the intersection of emotion and ideas, and how they manifest in different forms of art and design.

Jack: “It’s fascinating, isn’t it? How art and architecture share the concept of creation, but they channel it in different ways. In art, the creator’s emotions are the driving force, whereas in architecture, the focus shifts to structure and logic. Yet, both can evoke a powerful response from people—art through emotional connection, and architecture through spatial experience. It’s the ideas behind a building that can make it iconic, and the feeling behind a painting that can move us deeply.”

Jeeny: “Yes, and I think Diller is showing us that both disciplines are really about expression, just in different forms. Art allows for a personal, emotional response, while architecture is a marriage of personal expression with functional needs. Both require creativity, but in architecture, that creativity must also meet the constraints of the environment, the purpose, and the people who will interact with the space. It’s a fine balance between emotion and reason.”

Jack: “Exactly. And it’s why both art and architecture can be so impactful. In art, we connect with the artist’s emotions, their raw feelings. But in architecture, we interact with the physical world that has been shaped by ideas—ideas that affect how we live, how we move through spaces, and how we feel in those spaces. It’s an interesting fusion of creativity and logic.”

Jeeny: “Right, and it’s about how each of them leaves a lasting impression. Art captures a feeling, an essence that stays with you, while architecture creates spaces that impact how you experience the world around you. Diller is showing us that both are important—they each reflect different aspects of the human experience.”

Host: The quiet in the room deepened as they both considered the beauty of how art and architecture complement each other. Elizabeth Diller’s words had sparked a reflection on how both disciplines channel creativity, but in different ways—one through emotion, the other through ideas. Jack leaned back slightly in his chair, while Jeeny’s gaze turned from the window back to him, both of them understanding how art and architecture intersect and shape our world in unique, yet deeply connected ways.

Jack: “So, Diller is really showing us that art and architecture are two sides of the same coin. In one, you’re embracing feeling and emotion; in the other, you’re creating something that functions, inspires, and serves a purpose. Both are about creation, but one is about what we feel, and the other is about what we experience in space and time.”

Jeeny: “Exactly. And both have the ability to move us, to evoke strong reactions. Art affects us emotionally, while architecture shapes how we experience the world physically. Diller is reminding us that the best of both disciplines rely on a deep understanding of human emotion, but expressed in different ways.”

Host: The evening had fully settled in, the quiet understanding between them a reminder that art and architecture, though seemingly different, are both deeply connected by creativity. Elizabeth Diller had reminded them that while art speaks to our emotions and personal expression, architecture brings together emotion and practicality, creating spaces that shape how we interact with the world. The world outside had darkened, but inside, there was light—a recognition that both art and architecture are essential forms of expression that shape the human experience.