The paper examines the bond between architecture and history on the premise that everybody is familiar with both architecture and history. The paper views architecture as a profession that is satiated with imaginative and creative thinking; and contends that architecture extends, historically, into wherever human beings live their life. The author opines that architecture easily extends its influence, as a vivid universal metaphor into every sphere of human activity as a synonym, in building either concrete or abstract forms. Thus, the paper proceeds to demonstrate that architecture chronicles the achievements of peoples in creatively constructed concrete forms, which it infuses with the histories of abstract concepts in time and space. Conversely, the paper points out that history, which highlights the living memories of humanity, chronicles the antecedences, precedence, sequences, and consequences of man’s concrete achievements incogent abstract forms. Consequently, the paper concludes that while architecture builds conceptualized concrete forms from and for history; history builds its concrete abstract forms from and for architecture. Thus, the paper concludes that The Architecture of History and The History of Architecture ultimately coincides in their complementarity, as mutual witnesses to the activities of man in time and space.

The paper presents George Steiner’s view of the right conditions for the contemplation of art. The position has been presented as motivated by a certain concept of artistic creation and the reception of art.Steiner’s vision of art finds its legitimacy in a belief which describes the linguistic activity of man as one which is at the same time creative (innovative) and conditioned by external discourses. In this view both the speaking subject and the subject of an artistic activity are motivated by a desire to become independent from an impartial discourse of mind. An artist is someone who opposes the past and present forms of expression in an attempt to incarnate a sense which in the light of the established forms of discourse appears inexpressible. The key point of Steiner's concept is his argumentation in favor of the ambiguity of dividing the human activity into the original and the derived (mediated by secondary narratives). An artist, a recipient of art or a theorist do not have the tools which could point at the divide.The analysis sets out to make an outline of Steiner’s rendition of the problem of interpretation and development o art. The originality of the position on the issue results from attributing a major significance to interpretative errors for the survival and the constant appeal of art. The process of interpretation is also described as one which yields to no theoretical taxonomy. According to Steiner, a recipient of art disposes of no tools that would warrant access to a transcendental sense of a work of art. Therefore, it ought to be ascertained that a reliable act of reception is one which does not pursue agreement with its object. The recipient must remain detached from the work of art. Paradoxically, only thanks to such an attitude can they make art part of their experience.