A number of artists in the past have practiced architecture, sculpture and painting. For instance, in 16th century Italy there was no feeling that it was improper to work in three areas, and in case of Michelangelo it would be difficult to determine in which discipline he was preeminent.

Today such a thing would be almost impossible. It has common practice to specialize in painting or sculpture, occasionally to engage in both, but never to encompass all three disciplines. One of the obvious reasons is that training in architecture now involves so much technical instruction that demands of time exclude other studies. Thus, a historical link between the three arts has been broken. At least one unfortunate effect of this break is that the architect, who is frequently the purchaser of painting and sculpture for an architectural setting, may have an undeveloped pictorial and sculptural sensitivity, which may make his or her choices less than appropriate.

The most significant effect of the separation perhaps has been that painting and sculpture have come to be regarded as different from architecture, and when the fine arts are considered, it is these areas that are usually referred to. But painting and sculpture are as different in kind from each other as both are from architecture.

Sculpture has a long history of close connection with architectural structures. The integration of the building with the external sculptures on, say, an Indian temple or the north door of the Chartres Cathedral is immediately evident. Because sculpture, like architecture, is generally three-dimensional, their relationship is easily compared.