architecture and essence…

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?



architecture and essence…

One thought on “architecture and essence…

  1. Steve says:

    That whats “nice” (not really) about the english language and possibly others, english is the only language that I know very well and there are a few english teachers that would argue that point, is that there is more than one definition for almost any word you chose. So whether you want to define it as “The art and science of designing and erecting buildings” or “Orderly arrangement of parts” I guess you would be right. The big question is had you designed the cup with the handle on the inside would you call that poor architecture or individualism. It might look cool but it wouldn’t work..

Please leave a reply, and consider sharing this with a friend.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s