Talk:Architecture

Comment

i do not agree with more than king's done architecture in history becase all modern buildings are not architecture and this means this architecture buildings have to fit in correct way to inside living people and not to working people or it fits correct to art people to different music halls or under the architecture law done buildings but new buildings are politics buildings and have no chance to be architecture and new means in most cases build behind ' 1924 ' included — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waldemar Gregor Kaiser (talk • contribs) 13:49, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

• I believe the "Form follows Function" discussion should be at the very first part of the article. I would not call anyone an Architect unless their product first and foremost had "Function" (reliability, maintainability, etc. ), but architecture also requires a "Form" that has aesthetic qualities, and sometimes other requirements. Engineering is good at following Functional Requirements, but Art is considered Non-Functional. It is Art to make it pleasing. 2600:6C48:7006:200:D84D:5A80:173:901D (talk) 01:38, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

• Furthermore, Architecture is often not a required activity in product development when Engineering will suffice. There are many products that require good engineering practices, and ergonomics - but it doesn't need to look pretty or have symbolic attributes. Prototypes often forgo the artistic attributes, or otherwise minimize the requirements of a product.2600:6C48:7006:200:D84D:5A80:173:901D (talk) 02:05, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Metaphorical architectures don't belong on this page

This article ought to be about building architecture, but about half of it is about unrelated $Foo Architecture, where the word "architecture" is really just a metaphor. e.g. (real) architecture has no equivalent of data sharding; systems architecture has no equivalent of cornices.

IMO those sections should be replaced by a simple bullet list, like

   ## "Architecture" in Other Disciplines
   * Computer architecture is ...
   * Enterprise architecture is ...

Instead, let's have some more details about real architecture, especially paradigms and architects outside the anglosphere!

203.7.155.119 (talk) 00:35, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Architecture and building are 2 different subjects. Reducing architecture to construction, it is like reducing engineering to building or like reducing the art of decorating or painting to construction.

We are living in the 21st Century. Contemporary Architecture cannot be reduced to physical construction; it cannot be reduced to a final building. Architecture is space (in its different states and meanings), forms, organisation, communication, design, nature ... I am renaming the Section "Other terms" to "other categories".

Reducing the term "Architecture" to building or construction would be a narrow minded decision. It would reduce the Wiki article to a superficial and vulgar definition. In my opinion the article is already too focus on construction and building. In the 21st century, construction and building should be a sub-category to define the term "Architecture". The terms "computer architecture" or "cognitive architecture" or "software architecture" and others, are not metaphors, they are true representations of the architectural state. Can we reduce the term "Structure" to building structures? Why should we do so for the term "architecture"? Architectures are meaningful complex structures which are not limited to buildings, gardens, interiors or naval design.

--Christophe Krief (talk) 10:20, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree that Architecture is and can be used in various other contexts. But I feel that this article is focused on building/design/construction. There is ample space on the page Architecture_(disambiguation) for listing other uses of the term. There it also reads "Architecture is the art and science of designing and constructing buildings and other structure for human use and shelter." with a link to this page. It is very inconsistent and confusing for the reader to then list again other uses of the term (which are also not contributing to the article but rather are extended links to other wiki-pages). In my opinion all these should be deleted and moved to the disamibuation page, maybe with the exception of landscape architecture and interior architecture.

If "Architecture" is understood as a very abstract process of composing various elements into a spatial order, with buidling being only one expression of it, the entire article would need to be rewritten in this direction. I would not support such a change because it pushes the understanding of architecture too far away from the mainstream. I would agree to a section on how the term has been used in other disciplines, but that should not be longer than a paragraph or two.

Christoph Michels (talk) 09:22, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Agreed - unless anyone objects I will remove these soon. Johnbod (talk) 15:39, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Would it be possible to discuss this issue further? Architecture is not only a building or the building resulting of a design. The term is not used as a metaphor to define the functioning of the brain or elaboration of a thought or an abstract organisation. Architecture is not a material form. It is a principle, a process or a concept leading to an organisation or a system. I would like you to consider the "structure" article on Wikipedia which is not focused on the materialistic definition of the term but extends in a modern and informative way. Why should it be different for "Architecture"?--Christophe Krief (talk) 00:09, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Actually it is used for all sorts of things. I did this edit to reflect the discussion above. Would you want all that stuff back? Johnbod (talk) 11:37, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply. I do not want to start a dispute, so I was hoping that this issue would be opened for discussion. Why should we limit this article to the material aspect of architecture? We could have an article titled Architecture (building) in the same way than Architecture (computer) or Architecture (business), Architecture (software) and so on. In the disambiguation page, Architecture should not be defined as "the art and science of designing and constructing buildings and other structure for human use and shelter" because this is only a partial definition of the term. Architecture relates to much more than this. Yes I would like to see the other architectures re-integrated in this article; but most of all, I would like to see this article and the disambiguation page modernised to reflect the use of the term today. The main page should include proportionally for all the definition of the term. A page should be created with the title "Architecture (building)" because it is the only way for Wikipedia to provide a contemporary definition of the term as it is already done for the article "structure". I believe that if this is done in the English Wikipedia, the other languages will soon follow. --Christophe Krief (talk) 22:59, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I think the most common understanding of the term architecture (when not qualifying it with another word such as in "business architecture", "architecture of the brain", etc) is that is about buildings. Examples of usage: "I am employing an architect", "I am studying architecture", "Royal Institute of British Architects": I think that the usual assumption would these were all to do with buildings.

Is architecture as a general concept actually notable WP:N? I have tried searching on "architecture as a concept" and "the concept of architecture" but I can only find things like "architectural concepts", which are to do with buildings.

I think that the case of structure is different. For one thing, just using "structure" on its own does not bring to mind any particular type of structure. Also, structure might not itself be notable.

FrankSier (talk) 13:31, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 April 2019

Hello there, I wish to offer a suggestion to the following edit because it is important to state the true essence of the word. As a native Greek, I can offer some insight on the following...

• Chief in Greek is Αρχηγος, it comes from the Αρχη and Ηγώ which literally means First to rule. Architect though is not a ruler-chief literally. I understand how this mistake can be made but as a professional and mature artist, I believe we should make this more clear for the new ones.

• Τέκτων is not the Creator, but a Craftsman which in modern Greek is Τεχνήτης. They all derive from the word Art (Τέχνη) which literally means the result which comes from practical mastery. The difference is that a creator is someone who conceptualizes something, and this does not mean that it can ever be functional or practical. A Craftsman or a real Artist is one who masters a practical deployment through observation which is complimented with repetition, replication, and coherent coverage over what is possible. It would be great if you could also say something about this, but for now, I would just want to say that the etymology could easily change as the following.

please change: Architecture (Latin architectura, from the Greek ἀρχιτέκτων arkhitekton "architect", from ἀρχι- "chief" and τέκτων "creator") is both the process and the product of planning, designing, and constructing buildings and other physical structures.

to: Architecture (Latin architectura, from the Greek ἀρχιτέκτων arkhitekton "architect", from ἀρχι- "first" and τέκτων "craftsman" or "artist") is both the process and the result of mastering a practical function (skill). Although its roots lay over the planning, designing, and building of physical structures, its branches truly expand to all arts and sciences. ____________________________________

In my notes I made the following synthesis which includes references from the above suggestions which other people made: Architecture, the art of forming coherent structures is the highest form of arts. Even if it has been long associated with the act of designing and building physical constructions, its roots lay in the Mastery of Practicality. It got its name from the ancient Greeks who called ἀρχιτέκτων (arkhitekton-architect) those who were Masters at their Craft (from ἀρχι- "first" and τέκτων "craftsman").

Contemporary Architecture cannot be reduced to physical construction. Architecture is space (in its different states and meanings), forms, organization, communication, design, nature. The use of the term architecture also has applications in information technology, in the science of reasoning (logic), as well as in landscapes and naval design. In philosophy, we may speak of the architecture of thought, the architecture of a concept. In neuroscience of the architecture of the brain or the architecture of a nervous system. The term is used in many other professions to define a unifying or coherent form or structure which follows function.

Thank you. Adamapricot (talk) 18:03, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Synthesis is a harder sell to make here, as this is frowned upon in most articles. The sources you have used to reach these conclusions should be provided, in order to double check that this is not the case here.  Spintendo  16:55, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I fully agree with Adamapricot (talk) and his etymological research confirm my understanding of architecture. Architecture is not only a building or the building resulting of a design. The term is not used as a metaphor to define the functioning of the brain or elaboration of a thought or an abstract organisation. Architecture is not a material form. It is a principle, a process or a concept leading to an organisation or a system. --Christophe Krief (talk) 21:59, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 April 2019

The external link Glossary of Architecture Terms (with dictionary definitions)is broken. Please remove it. You could replace it with https://architecturaltrust.org/outreach/education/glossary-of-architectural-terms/ Pearlharperinfamoushistorian (talk) 15:10, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for pointing that out. Station1 (talk) 18:41, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Architecture for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Architecture is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Architecture until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:56, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 October 2020

"Add to Historic treatises"

In the mid to late 16th century Italian Mannerist architect, painter and theorist, Sebastiano Serlio, wrote the influential architecture treatise Tutte L’Opere D’Architettura et Prospetiva (1537-75) - “Complete Works on Architecture and Perspective”). The treatise exerted immense influence throughout Europe being the first architectural handbook that emphasized the practical rather than the theoretical aspects of architecture, and it was the first to catalog the five orders. DianaVS2 (talk) 16:12, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough - reference & link please (of course we have an article). Johnbod (talk) 16:18, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 14:11, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Plenty of refs at Serlio article or by quick google. Thanks for the suggestion. Station1 (talk) 07:07, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Aesthetics in architecture

I've looked at architecture-related articles and this article has the most information about the aesthetics in architecture. I think it would be good to have a dedicated article about it covering both prescriptive (what the relationship should be per Vitruvius, Sullivan and others) and descriptive (what has been considered aesthetically pleasing). I can give it a try but wanted to get some feedback first - maybe it's been covered somewhere already. Alaexis_¿question? 18:37, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Adding a section about indigenous architecture in the Americas

I am probing and gathering support to add a section on native American architecture (e.g. Mesoamerican architecture, Andean architecture and elsewhere). The article in general is too biased towards European architecture. For instance, Indian and Chinese architectures are grouped into "Asian", despite being completely separate cradles of civilization. isacdaavid 00:03, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Edit request

Could someone with edit permission consider deleting "In fact" in the below sentence?

"In fact, During the European Middle Ages, pan-European styles of Romanesque and Gothic cathedrals and abbeys emerged while the Renaissance favored Classical forms implemented by architects known by name."

This sentence isn't an intensification or illustration of the point in the prior sentence, so "In fact" doesn't fit. 131.191.89.1 (talk) 05:02, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done. Station1 (talk) 06:37, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Done thanks for the use 105.112.16.231 (talk) 20:23, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Article rating

What is preventing this article from being a B-class article on Wikipedia's content assessment scale? Drocj (talk) 09:42, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Not bad 42.106.177.82 (talk) 13:31, 20 October 2024 (UTC)