Abstract: Although "realism" can mean numerous different things in different contexts,it is safe to say that there are two basic types of realism.The first-usually found in the arts and in politics-defines the "real" as the ugly facts of life that cannot be denied.We can call this kind "Realism of Immanence." The second-most prominent in mathematics-treats the real as that which is superior to anything merely earthly.Let's call this kind "Realism of Transcendence." Which sort of realism is a better model for architecture to follow?The answer is neither,since the Realism of Immanence "overmines" architecture by reducing it to its function or program,and the Realism of Transcendence "undermines" it by reducing it downward to a small set of functional elements or even geometrical solids said to be at work in every great building.Instead,the true path for realist architecture requires an "impure" admixture of forms and human functions.But this raises important questions about Immanuel Kant's aesthetics,which overemphasizes "purity" even while conflating it with autonomy.By purity,Kant effectively means the separation of two particular kinds of entities:(1)human thought,and(2)everything else.In this respect he follows the central dogma of modern philosophy,assuming that the human being is something so radically different in kind from the rest of the cosmos that it automatically de-purifies whatever it touches.As a result,architecture is disqualified by Kant as a possible case of pure beauty,since in his view the fact that architecture has a use-value disqualifies it as a purely aesthetic phenomenon.What Kant thereby misses is that the human beholder and the art object it beholds becomes a new third object that is autonomous from its environment even though its two elements(human and art object)are no longer autonomous from each other.