On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 1:32 PM, Rob Eamon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Architecture: > > "In every usage, an architecture may be seen as a subjective mapping > from a human perspective (that of the user in the case of abstract or > physical artifacts) to the elements or components of some kind of > structure or system, which preserves the relationships among the > elements or components." > > A key phrase there would seem to be "...subjective mapping..." which > presumably is contrasted with an engineering-based or objective > approach.
Sorry, the definition of engineering also has a "subjective" or "creative" aspect: "[T]he *creative *application of scientific principles to design or develop structures, machines, apparatus, or manufacturing processes, or works utilizing them singly or in combination; or to construct or operate the same with full cognizance of their design; or to forecast their behavior under specific operating conditions; all as respects an intended function, economics of operation and safety to life and property." [emphasis added] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineering > The etymology of "architect" listed on that page indicates that the > term effectively means "master builder." This would imply a level of > education or experience that "mere designers" wouldn't have. Not always. In the building professions is there a different certified or credentialed degree for architects and engineers. So you could have a junior architect working with a senior engineer. I agree that in disciplines like software engineering/programming, the title "architect" is informally bestowed on the most experienced designer/programmers. > Can an "engineer" create/define an effective architecture? Is > architect merely a role, one that can be filled by any capable person > regardless of their formal title & training? It would seem that > experience is a chief attribute of an architect, thus a seasoned > engineer may very likely be able to fill the role of architect. Agreed. > The second paragraph of the wiki article really seems to capture the > differences in my mind: > > "Architects have as their primary object providing for the spatial > and shelter needs of people in groups of some kind (families, > schools, churches, businesses, etc.) by the *creative *organisation of > materials and components in a land- or city-scape, dealing with mass, > space, form, volume, texture, structure, light, shadow, materials, > program, and pragmatic elements such as cost, construction > limitations and technology, to achieve an end which is functional, > economical, practical and often with artistic and aesthetic aspects. > This distinguishes architecture from engineering design, which has as > its primary object the *creative *manipulation of materials and forms > using mathematical and scientific principles." So both engineers and architects design, and both are creative (see my added emphasis), it's just that engineers use more science and math? Then give me a creative engineer any day! > It may be a mistake that I keep looking to building architecture > definitions, so the differences I'm looking for between architecture > and design may exist there but not apply to business and software > architecture. I think it is a mistake to look (only) at building architecture for definitions. Guess what they call the creative, aesthetic designer of products? Industrial designer! Here's how wikipedia defines industrial design: *Industrial design* is an applied art<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Applied_art>whereby the aesthetics <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aesthetics> and usability<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usability>of products <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Product_%28business%29> may be improved for marketability and production<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing>. The role of an Industrial Designer is to create and execute design solutions towards problems of engineering, usability, user ergonomics, marketing, brand development and sales. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_design If we were to stick with your architecture vs. engineering distinction, shouldn't an industrial designer be called an "industrial architect"? -- Nick
