Frances to Luis with thanks... (1) The totality and finality of an architectural project, as a plan or process or product, might entail it being settled and completed and finished, but necessarily only to some degree and only in some context; so that the total state of the final project could for example be settled and finished, yet be and stay incomplete. (2)It does seem that architecture might be a combinatory mix of what is preparatory and contributory to it and what it is consummatory of. Whether the criteria of that growing combined collectivity would be based mainly on formal iconic similarity and identity however is unclear to me. (3) The diachronic and synchronic and even "geochronic" evolution of architecture also seems to be one of accommodation and assimilation and appropriation, both of architecture and other things, the goal of which tends to lean in the direction of globalization, be it cultural or colonial or international or due to whatever causes, but which furthermore seems to be nonetheless good. (4) The term for the typical object of architecture as a typical class is variously called a structure or a construct or an edifice or a building or a product, but perhaps experts also use alternate terms not known to me. The token members as an object in the class of course are clearly called by many terms, such as a tomb or tower or house or plaza or temple or castle or fortress and so on.
Luis wrote... Yes, many projects remain incomplete, unintentionally and many times intentionally if the project is to be built in phases. Each phase is a totality, a complete work of architecture, and each subsequent phase sums up to a new totality. The use/function of the building may change. Additions and remodels often occur that accentuate, propagate, contrast, or change the original edifice's underlying architectural ideas/forms/functions. Time and "acts of god" including war may destroy or deteriorate "the architecture" for example the Parthenon, one of the great icons of architecture. All of these instances remain architecture. Say a residence, a work of architecture is completed, and the family moves in. Soon after there is an infestation of termites and they all have to move out for two days to have the residence tented and fumigated. Is it no longer architecture during these two days? Now expand the time frame, they never return and no one lives there for decades or ever again. Is it no longer architecture? It retains the inherent potency of architecture whether occupied or not, whether ever seen again or not. William wrote... And one of the first uses of art was to adorn and be integrated with architecture. Maybe architecture is the main art form since all the other arts take place in its context. Luis wrote... I agree with this. I feel that an intensification and reintegration of those arts that complement architecture is an extremely worthwhile endeavor. It would be beneficial for all involved: architects, artists, and society at large.
