I ran across this video recently, perhaps you have all seen it by now. It was posted on Brinn Miracle’s “architects like” blog in January, so I am re-blogging her re-blog. Forgive me. However, in light of my recent statement about defining (or not defining) architecture, I was wondering if this clarifies or confuses the matter even more.
Does architecture extend beyond habitable shelter…I believe it can. However, is the essence of a physical object (the evocation or description of that object as in this video) architecture or “the architecture” of that object. I wonder how broad based our use of the term should go.
Watch this video and give me your feedback.
What do you think? Do you agree or disagree? Or is it not that simple? (I’ll stop asking questions now)
is the cup or the shadow the architecture?