BASIC PRODUCTION MODEL IN HOLISM OF ARCHITECTURE:
intention - act
act - rule
product - site
Sunday, July 20, 2008
ACADEMIC ARCHITECTURE
- generally, the aplicable procedures involve are as follows:
1- pre-design stage ( intention )
2- design stage ( act )
# schematic
# design endorsement
# design development
# final design
# design audit
3- production stage (act )
4- tender action ( act )
5- project / contract ( act )
6- building ( product )
1- pre-design stage ( intention )
2- design stage ( act )
# schematic
# design endorsement
# design development
# final design
# design audit
3- production stage (act )
4- tender action ( act )
5- project / contract ( act )
6- building ( product )
HOLISM OF ARCHITECTURE
MEANING OF HOLISM
HOL = HOLISTIC
+
ISM = ISME, IDEOLOGY
HOLISM IN ARCHITECTURE ~~ academic architecture
~~ business architecture
HOL = HOLISTIC
+
ISM = ISME, IDEOLOGY
HOLISM IN ARCHITECTURE ~~ academic architecture
~~ business architecture
HISTORY HOLISM
Holism (from ὅλος holos, a Greek word meaning all, entire, total) is the idea that all the properties of a given system (biological, chemical, social, economic, mental, linguistic, etc.) cannot be determined or explained by its component parts alone. Instead, the system as a whole determines in an important way how the parts behave.
The general principle of holism was concisely summarized by Aristotle in the Metaphysics: "The whole is more than the sum of its parts."
Reductionism is sometimes seen as the opposite of holism. Reductionism in science says that a complex system can be explained by reduction to its fundamental parts. Reductionism essentially claims that chemistry is reducible to physics, biology is reducible to chemistry and psychology and sociology are reducible to biology, etc. Some other proponents of reductionism, however, think that holism is the opposite only of greedy reductionism.
On the other hand, holism and reductionism can also be regarded as complementary viewpoints, in which case they both would be needed to get a proper account of a given system.
History
The term holism was introduced by the South African statesman Jan Smuts in his 1926 book, Holism and Evolution.[2] Smuts defined holism as "The tendency in nature to form wholes that are greater than the sum of the parts through creative evolution."[3]
The idea has ancient roots. Examples of holism can be found throughout human history and in the most diverse socio-cultural contexts, as has been confirmed by many ethnological studies. The French Protestant missionary, Maurice Leenhardt coined the term cosmomorphism to indicate the state of perfect symbiosis with the surrounding environment which characterized the culture of the Melanesians of New Caledonia. For these people, an isolated individual is totally indeterminate, indistinct and featureless until he can find his position within the natural and social world in which he is inserted. The confines between the self and the world are annulled to the point that the material body itself is no guarantee of the sort of recognition of identity which is typical of our own culture.
In science
Main article: Holism in science
In the latter half of the 20th century, holism led to systems thinking and its derivatives, like the sciences of chaos and complexity. Systems in biology, psychology, or sociology are frequently so complex that their behavior appears "new" or "emergent": it cannot be deduced from the properties of the elements alone.[4]
Holism has thus been used as a catchword. This contributed to the resistance encountered by the scientific interpretation of holism, which insists that there are ontological reasons that prevent reductive models in principle from providing efficient algorithms for prediction of system behavior in certain classes of systems.
Further resistance to holism has come from the association of the concept with quantum mysticism. Scientists were as a rule discouraged from doing any work which may perpetuate such deception. Recently, however, public understanding has grown over the realities of such concepts, and more scientists are beginning to accept serious research into the concept.
Scientific holism holds that the behavior of a system cannot be perfectly predicted, no matter how much data is available. Natural systems can produce surprisingly unexpected behavior, and it is suspected that behavior of such systems might be computationally irreducible, which means it would not be possible to even approximate the system state without a full simulation of all the events occurring in the system. Key properties of the higher level behavior of certain classes of systems may be mediated by rare "surprises" in the behavior of their elements due to the principal of interconnectivity, thus evading predictions except by brute force simulation. Stephen Wolfram has provided such examples with simple cellular automata, whose behavior is in most cases equally simple, but on rare occasions highly unpredictable.[5]
Complexity theory (also called "science of complexity"), is a contemporary heir of systems thinking. It comprises both computational and holistic, relational approaches towards understanding complex adaptive systems and, especially in the latter, its methods can be seen as the polar opposite to reductive methods. General theories of complexity have been proposed, and numerous complexity institutes and departments have sprung up around the world. The Santa Fe Institute is arguably the most famous of them.
In anthropology
There is an ongoing dispute on the definition of anthropology as holistic and the "four-field" approach. Supporters of this definition,[6] consider it holistic in two senses: it is concerned with all human beings across times and places, and with all dimensions of humanity (evolutionary, biophysical, sociopolitical, economic, cultural, psychological, etc.); also many academic programs following this approach take a "four-field" approach to anthropology that encompasses physical anthropology, archeology, linguistics, and cultural anthropology or social anthropology. The definition of anthropology as holistic and the "four-field" approach are disputed by leading anthropologist,[7] that consider those as artifacts from 19th century social evolutionary thought that inappropriately impose scientific positivism upon cultural anthropology.[7]
In ecology
The neutrality of this section is disputed.Please see the discussion on the talk page.(February 2008)Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved.
The holistic approach to ecology is exemplified by the field of systems ecology, a cross-disciplinary field influenced by general systems theory.
In economics
With roots in Schumpeter, the evolutionary approach might be considered the holist theory in economics. They share certain language from the biological evolutionary approach. They take into account how the innovation system evolves over time. Knowledge and know-how, know-who, know-what and know-why are part of the whole business economics. Knowledge can also be tacit, as described by Michael Polanyi. These models are open, and consider that it is hard to predict exactly the impact of a policy measure. They are also less mathematical.
In philosophy
Main articles: Semantic holism and confirmation holism
In philosophy, any doctrine that emphasizes the priority of a whole over its parts is holism. In the philosophy of language this becomes the claim, called semantic holism, that the meaning of an individual word or sentence can only be understood in terms of its relations to a larger body of language, even a whole theory or a whole language. In the philosophy of mind, a mental state may be identified only in terms of its relations with others. This is often referred to as content holism or holism of the mental.
Epistemological and confirmation holism are mainstream ideas in contemporary philosophy.
In sociology
Main article: Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft
Emile Durkheim developed a concept of holism which he opposed to the notion that a society was nothing more than a simple collection of individuals. In more recent times, Louis Dumont [8] has contrasted "holism" to "individualism" as two different forms of societies. According to him, modern humans live in an individualist society, whereas ancient Greek society, for example, could be qualified as "holistic", because the individual found identity in the whole society. Thus, the individual was ready to sacrifice himself or herself for his or her community, as his or her life without the polis had no sense whatsoever.
In teleological psychology
Alfred Adler believed that the individual (an integrated whole expressed through a self-consistent unity of thinking, feeling, and action, moving toward an unconscious, fictional final goal), must be understood within the larger wholes of society, from the groups to which he belongs (starting with his face-to-face relationships), to the larger whole of mankind. The recognition of our social embeddedness and the need for developing an interest in the welfare of others, as well as a respect for nature, is at the heart of Adler's philosophy of living and principles of psychotherapy.
Edgar Morin, the French philosopher and sociobiologist, can be considered a holist based on the transdisciplinary nature of his work.
Mel Levine, M.D., author of A Mind at a Time,[9] and Co-Founder (with Charles R. Schwab) of the not-for-profit organization All Kinds of Minds, can be considered a holist based on his view of the 'whole child' as a product of many systems and his work supporting the educational needs of children through the management of a child's educational profile as a whole rather than isolated weaknesses in that profile.
In theological anthropology
In theological anthropology, which belongs to theology and not to anthropology, holism is the belief that the nature of humans consists of an indivisible union of components such as body, soul and spirit.
In theology
Holistic concepts are strongly represented within the thoughts expressed within Logos (per Heraclitus), Panentheism and Pantheism.
In brain science
A lively debate has run since the end of the 19th century regarding the functional organization of the brain. The holistic tradition (e.g., Pierre Marie) maintained that the brain was an homogeneous organ with no specific subparts whereas the localizationists (e.g., Paul Broca) argued that the brain was organized in functionally distinct cortical areas which were each specialized to process a given type of information or implement specific mental operations. The controversy was epitomized with the existence of a language area in the brain, nowadays known as the Broca's area[10]. Although Broca's view has gained acceptance, the issue isn't settled insofar as the brain as a whole is a highly connected organ at every level from the individual neuron to the hemispheres.
Applications
Architecture and industrial design
Architecture and industrial design are often seen as enterprises, which constitute a whole, or to put it another way, design is often argued to be an holistic enterprise.[11] In architecture and industrial design holism tends to imply an all-inclusive design perspective, which is often regarded as somewhat exclusive to the two design professions. Holism is often considered as something that sets architects and industrial designers apart from other professions that participate in design projects. This view is supported and advocated by practising designers and design scholars alike, who often argue that architecture and/or industrial design have a distinct holistic character.
Education reform
The Taxonomy of Educational Objectives identifies many levels of cognitive functioning, which can be used to create a more holistic education. In authentic assessment, rather than using computers to score multiple choice test, a standards based assessment uses trained scorers to score open-response items using holistic scoring methods.[12] In projects such as the North Carolina Writing Project, scorers are instructed not to count errors, or count numbers of points or supporting statements. The scorer is instead, instruct to judge holistically whether "as a whole" is it more a "2" or a "3". Critics question whether such a process can be as objective as computer scoring, and the degree to which such scoring methods can result in different scores from different scorers.
Medicine
Holism appears in psychosomatic medicine. In the 1970s the holistic approach was considered one possible way to conceptualize psychosomatic phenomena. Instead of charting one-way causal links from psyche to soma, or vice-versa, it aimed at a systemic model, where multiple biological, psychological and social factors were seen as interlinked. Other, alternative approaches at that time were psychosomatic and somatopsychic approaches, which concentrated on causal links only from psyche to soma, or from soma to psyche, respectively.[13] At present it is commonplace in psychosomatic medicine to state that psyche and soma cannot really be separated for practical or theoretical purposes.[citation needed] A disturbance on any level - somatic, psychic, or social - will radiate to all the other levels, too. In this sense, psychosomatic thinking is similar to the biopsychosocial model of medicine.
In alternative medicine, a holistic approach to healing emphasizes the emotional, mental, spiritual, and physical elements of the patient, and claims to treat the whole person in its context. Some examples of holistic approaches include Ayurveda, Chiropractic medicine, Homoeopathy, Traditional Chinese medicine, Naturopathic medicine, Osteopathy, Unani medicine and Reflexology. Most of these schools do not originate from the medical-scientific tradition, and lack sufficient evidence to verify their claims.
The general principle of holism was concisely summarized by Aristotle in the Metaphysics: "The whole is more than the sum of its parts."
Reductionism is sometimes seen as the opposite of holism. Reductionism in science says that a complex system can be explained by reduction to its fundamental parts. Reductionism essentially claims that chemistry is reducible to physics, biology is reducible to chemistry and psychology and sociology are reducible to biology, etc. Some other proponents of reductionism, however, think that holism is the opposite only of greedy reductionism.
On the other hand, holism and reductionism can also be regarded as complementary viewpoints, in which case they both would be needed to get a proper account of a given system.
History
The term holism was introduced by the South African statesman Jan Smuts in his 1926 book, Holism and Evolution.[2] Smuts defined holism as "The tendency in nature to form wholes that are greater than the sum of the parts through creative evolution."[3]
The idea has ancient roots. Examples of holism can be found throughout human history and in the most diverse socio-cultural contexts, as has been confirmed by many ethnological studies. The French Protestant missionary, Maurice Leenhardt coined the term cosmomorphism to indicate the state of perfect symbiosis with the surrounding environment which characterized the culture of the Melanesians of New Caledonia. For these people, an isolated individual is totally indeterminate, indistinct and featureless until he can find his position within the natural and social world in which he is inserted. The confines between the self and the world are annulled to the point that the material body itself is no guarantee of the sort of recognition of identity which is typical of our own culture.
In science
Main article: Holism in science
In the latter half of the 20th century, holism led to systems thinking and its derivatives, like the sciences of chaos and complexity. Systems in biology, psychology, or sociology are frequently so complex that their behavior appears "new" or "emergent": it cannot be deduced from the properties of the elements alone.[4]
Holism has thus been used as a catchword. This contributed to the resistance encountered by the scientific interpretation of holism, which insists that there are ontological reasons that prevent reductive models in principle from providing efficient algorithms for prediction of system behavior in certain classes of systems.
Further resistance to holism has come from the association of the concept with quantum mysticism. Scientists were as a rule discouraged from doing any work which may perpetuate such deception. Recently, however, public understanding has grown over the realities of such concepts, and more scientists are beginning to accept serious research into the concept.
Scientific holism holds that the behavior of a system cannot be perfectly predicted, no matter how much data is available. Natural systems can produce surprisingly unexpected behavior, and it is suspected that behavior of such systems might be computationally irreducible, which means it would not be possible to even approximate the system state without a full simulation of all the events occurring in the system. Key properties of the higher level behavior of certain classes of systems may be mediated by rare "surprises" in the behavior of their elements due to the principal of interconnectivity, thus evading predictions except by brute force simulation. Stephen Wolfram has provided such examples with simple cellular automata, whose behavior is in most cases equally simple, but on rare occasions highly unpredictable.[5]
Complexity theory (also called "science of complexity"), is a contemporary heir of systems thinking. It comprises both computational and holistic, relational approaches towards understanding complex adaptive systems and, especially in the latter, its methods can be seen as the polar opposite to reductive methods. General theories of complexity have been proposed, and numerous complexity institutes and departments have sprung up around the world. The Santa Fe Institute is arguably the most famous of them.
In anthropology
There is an ongoing dispute on the definition of anthropology as holistic and the "four-field" approach. Supporters of this definition,[6] consider it holistic in two senses: it is concerned with all human beings across times and places, and with all dimensions of humanity (evolutionary, biophysical, sociopolitical, economic, cultural, psychological, etc.); also many academic programs following this approach take a "four-field" approach to anthropology that encompasses physical anthropology, archeology, linguistics, and cultural anthropology or social anthropology. The definition of anthropology as holistic and the "four-field" approach are disputed by leading anthropologist,[7] that consider those as artifacts from 19th century social evolutionary thought that inappropriately impose scientific positivism upon cultural anthropology.[7]
In ecology
The neutrality of this section is disputed.Please see the discussion on the talk page.(February 2008)Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved.
The holistic approach to ecology is exemplified by the field of systems ecology, a cross-disciplinary field influenced by general systems theory.
In economics
With roots in Schumpeter, the evolutionary approach might be considered the holist theory in economics. They share certain language from the biological evolutionary approach. They take into account how the innovation system evolves over time. Knowledge and know-how, know-who, know-what and know-why are part of the whole business economics. Knowledge can also be tacit, as described by Michael Polanyi. These models are open, and consider that it is hard to predict exactly the impact of a policy measure. They are also less mathematical.
In philosophy
Main articles: Semantic holism and confirmation holism
In philosophy, any doctrine that emphasizes the priority of a whole over its parts is holism. In the philosophy of language this becomes the claim, called semantic holism, that the meaning of an individual word or sentence can only be understood in terms of its relations to a larger body of language, even a whole theory or a whole language. In the philosophy of mind, a mental state may be identified only in terms of its relations with others. This is often referred to as content holism or holism of the mental.
Epistemological and confirmation holism are mainstream ideas in contemporary philosophy.
In sociology
Main article: Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft
Emile Durkheim developed a concept of holism which he opposed to the notion that a society was nothing more than a simple collection of individuals. In more recent times, Louis Dumont [8] has contrasted "holism" to "individualism" as two different forms of societies. According to him, modern humans live in an individualist society, whereas ancient Greek society, for example, could be qualified as "holistic", because the individual found identity in the whole society. Thus, the individual was ready to sacrifice himself or herself for his or her community, as his or her life without the polis had no sense whatsoever.
In teleological psychology
Alfred Adler believed that the individual (an integrated whole expressed through a self-consistent unity of thinking, feeling, and action, moving toward an unconscious, fictional final goal), must be understood within the larger wholes of society, from the groups to which he belongs (starting with his face-to-face relationships), to the larger whole of mankind. The recognition of our social embeddedness and the need for developing an interest in the welfare of others, as well as a respect for nature, is at the heart of Adler's philosophy of living and principles of psychotherapy.
Edgar Morin, the French philosopher and sociobiologist, can be considered a holist based on the transdisciplinary nature of his work.
Mel Levine, M.D., author of A Mind at a Time,[9] and Co-Founder (with Charles R. Schwab) of the not-for-profit organization All Kinds of Minds, can be considered a holist based on his view of the 'whole child' as a product of many systems and his work supporting the educational needs of children through the management of a child's educational profile as a whole rather than isolated weaknesses in that profile.
In theological anthropology
In theological anthropology, which belongs to theology and not to anthropology, holism is the belief that the nature of humans consists of an indivisible union of components such as body, soul and spirit.
In theology
Holistic concepts are strongly represented within the thoughts expressed within Logos (per Heraclitus), Panentheism and Pantheism.
In brain science
A lively debate has run since the end of the 19th century regarding the functional organization of the brain. The holistic tradition (e.g., Pierre Marie) maintained that the brain was an homogeneous organ with no specific subparts whereas the localizationists (e.g., Paul Broca) argued that the brain was organized in functionally distinct cortical areas which were each specialized to process a given type of information or implement specific mental operations. The controversy was epitomized with the existence of a language area in the brain, nowadays known as the Broca's area[10]. Although Broca's view has gained acceptance, the issue isn't settled insofar as the brain as a whole is a highly connected organ at every level from the individual neuron to the hemispheres.
Applications
Architecture and industrial design
Architecture and industrial design are often seen as enterprises, which constitute a whole, or to put it another way, design is often argued to be an holistic enterprise.[11] In architecture and industrial design holism tends to imply an all-inclusive design perspective, which is often regarded as somewhat exclusive to the two design professions. Holism is often considered as something that sets architects and industrial designers apart from other professions that participate in design projects. This view is supported and advocated by practising designers and design scholars alike, who often argue that architecture and/or industrial design have a distinct holistic character.
Education reform
The Taxonomy of Educational Objectives identifies many levels of cognitive functioning, which can be used to create a more holistic education. In authentic assessment, rather than using computers to score multiple choice test, a standards based assessment uses trained scorers to score open-response items using holistic scoring methods.[12] In projects such as the North Carolina Writing Project, scorers are instructed not to count errors, or count numbers of points or supporting statements. The scorer is instead, instruct to judge holistically whether "as a whole" is it more a "2" or a "3". Critics question whether such a process can be as objective as computer scoring, and the degree to which such scoring methods can result in different scores from different scorers.
Medicine
Holism appears in psychosomatic medicine. In the 1970s the holistic approach was considered one possible way to conceptualize psychosomatic phenomena. Instead of charting one-way causal links from psyche to soma, or vice-versa, it aimed at a systemic model, where multiple biological, psychological and social factors were seen as interlinked. Other, alternative approaches at that time were psychosomatic and somatopsychic approaches, which concentrated on causal links only from psyche to soma, or from soma to psyche, respectively.[13] At present it is commonplace in psychosomatic medicine to state that psyche and soma cannot really be separated for practical or theoretical purposes.[citation needed] A disturbance on any level - somatic, psychic, or social - will radiate to all the other levels, too. In this sense, psychosomatic thinking is similar to the biopsychosocial model of medicine.
In alternative medicine, a holistic approach to healing emphasizes the emotional, mental, spiritual, and physical elements of the patient, and claims to treat the whole person in its context. Some examples of holistic approaches include Ayurveda, Chiropractic medicine, Homoeopathy, Traditional Chinese medicine, Naturopathic medicine, Osteopathy, Unani medicine and Reflexology. Most of these schools do not originate from the medical-scientific tradition, and lack sufficient evidence to verify their claims.
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
THE ARCHITECT
Architecture as a profession is the practice of providing architectural services. The practice of architecture includes the planning, designing and oversight of a building's construction by an architect. Architectural services typically address both feasibility and cost for the builder, as well as function and aesthetics for the user.
Architecture did not start to become professionalized until the late nineteenth century. Before then, architects had ateliers and architectural education varied, from a more formal training as at the École des Beaux-Arts in France, which was founded in the mid seventeenth century, to the more informal system where students worked in an atelier until they could become independent. There were also so-called gentlemen architects, which were architects with private means. This was a tradition particularly strong in England during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Lord Burlington, designer of Chiswick House, (1723-49) is an example. Some architects were also sculptors, such as Bernini, theater designers such as Filippo Juvarra and John Vanbrugh, and painters, such as Michelangelo and Le Corbusier.
In the 1440s, the Florentine architect, Alberti, wrote his De Re Aedificatoria, published in 1485, a year before the first edition of Vitruvius, with which he was already familiar.[10][11] Alberti gives the earliest definition of the role of the architect. The architect is to be concerned firstly with the construction. This encompasses all the practical matters of site, of materials and their limitations and of human capability. The second concern is "articulation"; the building must work and must please and suit the needs of those who use it. The third concern of the architect is aesthetics, both of proportion and of ornament.
The role of the architect is constantly evolving, and is central to the design and implementation of the environments in which people live. In order to obtain the skills and knowledge required to design, plan, and oversee a diverse range of projects, architects must go through extensive formal education, coupled with a requisite amount of professional practice.
The work of an architect is an interdisciplinary field, drawing upon mathematics, science, art, technology, social sciences, politics and history, and is often governed by the architect's personal approach or philosophy. Vitruvius, the earliest known architectural theorist, states: "Architecture is a science, arising out of many other sciences, and adorned with much and varied learning: by the help of which a judgement is formed of those works which are the result of other arts." He adds that an architect should be well versed in other fields of learning such as music and astronomy.[11] Vitruvius' broad definition of the architect still holds true to some extent today, even though business concerns and the computer have reshaped the activities and definition of the modern architect in significant ways.
Architecture did not start to become professionalized until the late nineteenth century. Before then, architects had ateliers and architectural education varied, from a more formal training as at the École des Beaux-Arts in France, which was founded in the mid seventeenth century, to the more informal system where students worked in an atelier until they could become independent. There were also so-called gentlemen architects, which were architects with private means. This was a tradition particularly strong in England during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Lord Burlington, designer of Chiswick House, (1723-49) is an example. Some architects were also sculptors, such as Bernini, theater designers such as Filippo Juvarra and John Vanbrugh, and painters, such as Michelangelo and Le Corbusier.
In the 1440s, the Florentine architect, Alberti, wrote his De Re Aedificatoria, published in 1485, a year before the first edition of Vitruvius, with which he was already familiar.[10][11] Alberti gives the earliest definition of the role of the architect. The architect is to be concerned firstly with the construction. This encompasses all the practical matters of site, of materials and their limitations and of human capability. The second concern is "articulation"; the building must work and must please and suit the needs of those who use it. The third concern of the architect is aesthetics, both of proportion and of ornament.
The role of the architect is constantly evolving, and is central to the design and implementation of the environments in which people live. In order to obtain the skills and knowledge required to design, plan, and oversee a diverse range of projects, architects must go through extensive formal education, coupled with a requisite amount of professional practice.
The work of an architect is an interdisciplinary field, drawing upon mathematics, science, art, technology, social sciences, politics and history, and is often governed by the architect's personal approach or philosophy. Vitruvius, the earliest known architectural theorist, states: "Architecture is a science, arising out of many other sciences, and adorned with much and varied learning: by the help of which a judgement is formed of those works which are the result of other arts." He adds that an architect should be well versed in other fields of learning such as music and astronomy.[11] Vitruvius' broad definition of the architect still holds true to some extent today, even though business concerns and the computer have reshaped the activities and definition of the modern architect in significant ways.
ABOUT ARCHITECTURE
The term architecture can be used to mean a process, a profession or documentation.
As a process, architecture is the activity of designing and constructing buildings and other physical structures by a person or a machine, primarily done to provide socially purposeful shelter. A wider definition often includes the design of the total built environment, from the macro level of how a building integrates with its surrounding man made landscape (see town planning, urban design, and landscape architecture) to the micro level of architectural or construction details and, sometimes, furniture. Wider still, architecture is the activity of designing any kind of system.
As a profession, architecture is the role of those persons or machines providing architectural services.
As documentation, usually based on drawings, architecture defines the structure and/or behavior of a building or any other kind of system that is to be or has been constructed.
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.
Separate from the design process, architecture is also experienced[1] through the senses, which therefore gives rise to aural[2], visual, olfactory,[3] and tactile[4] architecture. As people move through a space, architecture is experienced as a time sequence.[5] Even though our culture considers architecture to be a visual experience, the other senses play a role in how we experience both natural and built environments. Attitudes towards the senses depend on culture.[6] The design process and the sensory experience of a space are distinctly separate views, each with its own language and assumptions.
Architectural works are perceived as cultural and political symbols and works of art. Historical civilizations are often known primarily through their architectural achievements. Such buildings as the pyramids of Egypt and the Roman Colosseum are cultural symbols, and are an important link in public consciousness, even when scholars have discovered much about a past civilization through other means. Cities, regions and cultures continue to identify themselves with (and are known by) their architectural monuments.[7]
As a process, architecture is the activity of designing and constructing buildings and other physical structures by a person or a machine, primarily done to provide socially purposeful shelter. A wider definition often includes the design of the total built environment, from the macro level of how a building integrates with its surrounding man made landscape (see town planning, urban design, and landscape architecture) to the micro level of architectural or construction details and, sometimes, furniture. Wider still, architecture is the activity of designing any kind of system.
As a profession, architecture is the role of those persons or machines providing architectural services.
As documentation, usually based on drawings, architecture defines the structure and/or behavior of a building or any other kind of system that is to be or has been constructed.
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.
Separate from the design process, architecture is also experienced[1] through the senses, which therefore gives rise to aural[2], visual, olfactory,[3] and tactile[4] architecture. As people move through a space, architecture is experienced as a time sequence.[5] Even though our culture considers architecture to be a visual experience, the other senses play a role in how we experience both natural and built environments. Attitudes towards the senses depend on culture.[6] The design process and the sensory experience of a space are distinctly separate views, each with its own language and assumptions.
Architectural works are perceived as cultural and political symbols and works of art. Historical civilizations are often known primarily through their architectural achievements. Such buildings as the pyramids of Egypt and the Roman Colosseum are cultural symbols, and are an important link in public consciousness, even when scholars have discovered much about a past civilization through other means. Cities, regions and cultures continue to identify themselves with (and are known by) their architectural monuments.[7]
who given the architect name
An architect is a person or machine who is involved in the planning, design, and oversight of a building's construction. The word "architect" comes from Latin architectus, which in turn derives from Greek arkhitekton (arkhi, chief + tekton, builder")[1]. In its broadest sense, an architect is a person who translates a user's requirements into a built environment.
Architects must frequently make professional decisions that affect the safety and well being of the general public. Architects are required to obtain specialized education and experience to obtain a license to practice architecture, similar to the requirements for other professionals. The requirements for practice vary from place to place (see below).
The words "architect" and "architecture" are also used by professionals in other engineering-like disciplines, notably by Software architects. However, see below for the protected status of these words under some jurisdictions.
Architects must frequently make professional decisions that affect the safety and well being of the general public. Architects are required to obtain specialized education and experience to obtain a license to practice architecture, similar to the requirements for other professionals. The requirements for practice vary from place to place (see below).
The words "architect" and "architecture" are also used by professionals in other engineering-like disciplines, notably by Software architects. However, see below for the protected status of these words under some jurisdictions.
Monday, July 14, 2008
ARCHITECT : WHAT'S IN A NAME
Architect: What's in a name?
There are those who object most vehemently to the use of "architecture" and "architect" in the software domain (see, for example, the "Hiring the phantom Java architect" discussion on TheServerSide). We even get email to this effect from time to time. Not that we are responsible for this appellation, nor is its use unique to software. It is being used for systems, for products, businesses and even (now this one does raise my eyebrows) the Visa brand! But I do happen to think it is a useful term to leverage in our field. It focuses attention where it needs to be focused: system visualization in terms of bigger structures. You could say a house is but a pile of wood and bricks, nails and such, but it doesn't make sense to (only) see a house that way, if you want to build one. And it doesn't make sense to (only) see a software system as a bunch of bits, or even lines of code. We have to see the bigger structures. The rooms, the flow among them, the supporting walls, the sheltering roof. The components, the interactions, the mechanisms, the subsystems. If we envisage and model larger grained entities, we set ourselves up to be able to create larger grained entities.
For most systems it makes a whole lot of sense to start with architecture, and use that to inform our approach to building the system or set of systems. And recognizing that we are always aggressive in what we try to accomplish, hence always stretching beyond what we have done before, we will learn as we go, and we will have to revisit our architecture. My response to that is simply to remind everyone that the role of the architect is ongoing; it is not just an upfront activity that is then left to petrify, in every sense of the word.
Tec is in the Name (ArchiTECt)
During the Role of the Architect workshop at the end of March, one of the architects emphasized the TEC in the word architect. We enthusiastically agree with the emphasis! That is the necessary foundation, and the ongoing touchstone, for our success as architects in the computing/systems/solutions space. We have to be able to make technical decisions that are respected in the developer community. If we are too removed from our technical roots, we will have a hard time facilitating, guiding and making decisions that stand up under developer scrutiny. We need to build trust and goodwill, so that our stakeholders are willing to advance the goodness of the architecture rather than casting stones at it to see how much they can break.
If we are a product or application architect, this may mean we still write code. But let's face it, how many IF-THEN-ELSE statements does a person have to write in a lifetime? The architect does not have to write just any code to show that he or she is still getting exposure to the technology and staying current with the moving frontier of "hard problems" that must be solved to make this system fly. Either the architect has to have very good relationships with designer/developers who do work on this frontier—relationships that translate through active discussions and open sharing into real insight—or the architect has to work there herself. Ideally, the architect is seen as useful by developers, not just as a political shield, but as a technical problem solver.
The architect role is working well when developers call upon the architect to enter into problem solving with them, especially when the issue they are grappling with touches multiple pieces of the system, or, even if localized in it's impact, it is significant to the success of the system. But if the architect is developing code, who is keeping the architecture up-to-date? This takes bandwidth. Ideally, the architect is involved in addressing, at a conceptual level, the tough challenges that may mean the architecture needs to be revised and updated, and then the architect updates, or better explains and defends, the architecture.
And arch is in the name (ARCHitect)
So the architect has technical roots, and technical acuity so that she is able to quickly grasp technical issues and lead the collaboration that brings them to resolution. But the architect is also the person (or team) with the whole-system purview, hence the emphasis on ARCH in architect (in the section title). The architect deals with over-arching concerns. What are the really big things we have to get right, or we fail? What are the concerns that cut across the pieces of the system? If we want the system to have particular properties, we need to intentionally design the architectural elements and their collaborations to achieve these properties. If we do not, the properties are emergent so that system acceptance is a matter of some combination of luck, developer heroics, and user compromise.
Architecture Versus Design
For those who still wonder why we need the concept of architecture when we already have the concept of design: In the early to mid-90's we were drawn into the nascent architecture field because the design approaches of the day (SA/SD, Booch, OMT, Fusion, ..., leading up to UML and RUP), though promising, still left us holding the ball of complexity. To address complexity, and specifically the problems of tractability, manageability (in human terms), and large-scale (re-)use, we needed to work at a higher level of decomposition than classes, and a higher level of architectural element (components and mechanisms) design to achieve system properties in an intentional way.
Grady Booch puts it like this: "all architecture is design, but not all design is architecture. Architecture represents the significant design decisions that shape a system, where significant is measured by cost of change." Cost of change goes up as scope of impact increases, so this definition covers decisions relating to system decomposition as well as those addressing cross-cutting concerns. Cost of change is also high if a significant chunk of the system has to be ditched and rewritten, so this speaks to challenging pieces of the system. The challenges may arise from tendency to change frequently, high risk, stringent demands, etc.
For years we have been using the "big rocks*" metaphor (see slide 6 and 7). If we place several big rocks in a large jar, then add pebbles, and last add sand, we fit them all into our jar. And yes, we could even add water. The point is not that we can always ask the developer to do more! The point is that if we start with the same sand, add the pebbles, and then try to add the big rocks, we cannot fit them all in the jar. To fit them all in, we must start with the big rocks. Architecture is about getting the big rocks in place first. But what are the "big rocks"? The architectural elements—the components and their relationships, yes. And architectural mechanisms addressing cross-cutting concerns or systemic properties, yes. Big rocks bear a high cost of change, yes. Is there more?
The architect of early generations of HP's Openview said "Architecture is the translation of business strategy into technical strategy." This definition focuses on the strategic nature of architecture. Architecture is about designing system capabilities that deliver the value propositions and reinforce the identity of the system (product, service, product-line, etc.) being architected. What is significant, in this view, is driven by what is strategic, and what is strategic determines how we will compete. What is the value we will deliver to our customers, our shareholders, our partners in the value network and our people? What capabilities will deliver this value? What services and properties must characterize these capabilities in order to deliver this differentiating value?
What is architecturally significant, then, is the decision of technically-experienced, strategically-minded architects of a given system (or set of systems, depending on the scope of the architecture). What is architecturally significant differs from system to system, depending on the kind of system and on the strategy; depending on what value this system will deliver and how it will support the differentiated identity of the business and its products or services. How we will differentiate dictates what hard problems we will tackle, where we will innovate, and where we must be ahead of competition. And it allows us to accept good-enough along those dimensions where we are not trying to create competitive advantage. Of course, even "good enough" may be challenging, especially when taken in conjunction with where we aim to differentiate.
So architecture helps us manage complexity and cost of change, and deliver differentiating value in alignment with our business and product strategy. Architecturally significant decisions are those that the architect (or architecture team) needs to make in order to address these concerns (strategy, complexity, and cost of change). They generally include the high-level decomposition of the system and address cross-cutting concerns. What we do is driven by our business strategy, how we do it is driven by cost of change.
Although these decisions about architectural significance and relative priorities are the responsibility of the architects, they, like the architecture design decisions, are not best made by the architects in isolation. They are best made by the architects in collaboration with the stakeholders they need to partner with for the system to succeed in delivering differentiating value. These stakeholders include customers and business leaders responsible for business longevity and competitiveness in capital markets, and they include those in the development community (project managers, developers, test/quality engineers, etc.).
ARCHitect, Again
The architect then, makes decisions that require system-wide scope of visibility and responsibility. And the architect also spans the chasm that has existed between "the business" and IT or R&D. Over-arching, bridging the divides, spanning the boundaries. No wonder it takes more than technical prowess, but strategy, leadership, and political skills too!
There are those who object most vehemently to the use of "architecture" and "architect" in the software domain (see, for example, the "Hiring the phantom Java architect" discussion on TheServerSide). We even get email to this effect from time to time. Not that we are responsible for this appellation, nor is its use unique to software. It is being used for systems, for products, businesses and even (now this one does raise my eyebrows) the Visa brand! But I do happen to think it is a useful term to leverage in our field. It focuses attention where it needs to be focused: system visualization in terms of bigger structures. You could say a house is but a pile of wood and bricks, nails and such, but it doesn't make sense to (only) see a house that way, if you want to build one. And it doesn't make sense to (only) see a software system as a bunch of bits, or even lines of code. We have to see the bigger structures. The rooms, the flow among them, the supporting walls, the sheltering roof. The components, the interactions, the mechanisms, the subsystems. If we envisage and model larger grained entities, we set ourselves up to be able to create larger grained entities.
For most systems it makes a whole lot of sense to start with architecture, and use that to inform our approach to building the system or set of systems. And recognizing that we are always aggressive in what we try to accomplish, hence always stretching beyond what we have done before, we will learn as we go, and we will have to revisit our architecture. My response to that is simply to remind everyone that the role of the architect is ongoing; it is not just an upfront activity that is then left to petrify, in every sense of the word.
Tec is in the Name (ArchiTECt)
During the Role of the Architect workshop at the end of March, one of the architects emphasized the TEC in the word architect. We enthusiastically agree with the emphasis! That is the necessary foundation, and the ongoing touchstone, for our success as architects in the computing/systems/solutions space. We have to be able to make technical decisions that are respected in the developer community. If we are too removed from our technical roots, we will have a hard time facilitating, guiding and making decisions that stand up under developer scrutiny. We need to build trust and goodwill, so that our stakeholders are willing to advance the goodness of the architecture rather than casting stones at it to see how much they can break.
If we are a product or application architect, this may mean we still write code. But let's face it, how many IF-THEN-ELSE statements does a person have to write in a lifetime? The architect does not have to write just any code to show that he or she is still getting exposure to the technology and staying current with the moving frontier of "hard problems" that must be solved to make this system fly. Either the architect has to have very good relationships with designer/developers who do work on this frontier—relationships that translate through active discussions and open sharing into real insight—or the architect has to work there herself. Ideally, the architect is seen as useful by developers, not just as a political shield, but as a technical problem solver.
The architect role is working well when developers call upon the architect to enter into problem solving with them, especially when the issue they are grappling with touches multiple pieces of the system, or, even if localized in it's impact, it is significant to the success of the system. But if the architect is developing code, who is keeping the architecture up-to-date? This takes bandwidth. Ideally, the architect is involved in addressing, at a conceptual level, the tough challenges that may mean the architecture needs to be revised and updated, and then the architect updates, or better explains and defends, the architecture.
And arch is in the name (ARCHitect)
So the architect has technical roots, and technical acuity so that she is able to quickly grasp technical issues and lead the collaboration that brings them to resolution. But the architect is also the person (or team) with the whole-system purview, hence the emphasis on ARCH in architect (in the section title). The architect deals with over-arching concerns. What are the really big things we have to get right, or we fail? What are the concerns that cut across the pieces of the system? If we want the system to have particular properties, we need to intentionally design the architectural elements and their collaborations to achieve these properties. If we do not, the properties are emergent so that system acceptance is a matter of some combination of luck, developer heroics, and user compromise.
Architecture Versus Design
For those who still wonder why we need the concept of architecture when we already have the concept of design: In the early to mid-90's we were drawn into the nascent architecture field because the design approaches of the day (SA/SD, Booch, OMT, Fusion, ..., leading up to UML and RUP), though promising, still left us holding the ball of complexity. To address complexity, and specifically the problems of tractability, manageability (in human terms), and large-scale (re-)use, we needed to work at a higher level of decomposition than classes, and a higher level of architectural element (components and mechanisms) design to achieve system properties in an intentional way.
Grady Booch puts it like this: "all architecture is design, but not all design is architecture. Architecture represents the significant design decisions that shape a system, where significant is measured by cost of change." Cost of change goes up as scope of impact increases, so this definition covers decisions relating to system decomposition as well as those addressing cross-cutting concerns. Cost of change is also high if a significant chunk of the system has to be ditched and rewritten, so this speaks to challenging pieces of the system. The challenges may arise from tendency to change frequently, high risk, stringent demands, etc.
For years we have been using the "big rocks*" metaphor (see slide 6 and 7). If we place several big rocks in a large jar, then add pebbles, and last add sand, we fit them all into our jar. And yes, we could even add water. The point is not that we can always ask the developer to do more! The point is that if we start with the same sand, add the pebbles, and then try to add the big rocks, we cannot fit them all in the jar. To fit them all in, we must start with the big rocks. Architecture is about getting the big rocks in place first. But what are the "big rocks"? The architectural elements—the components and their relationships, yes. And architectural mechanisms addressing cross-cutting concerns or systemic properties, yes. Big rocks bear a high cost of change, yes. Is there more?
The architect of early generations of HP's Openview said "Architecture is the translation of business strategy into technical strategy." This definition focuses on the strategic nature of architecture. Architecture is about designing system capabilities that deliver the value propositions and reinforce the identity of the system (product, service, product-line, etc.) being architected. What is significant, in this view, is driven by what is strategic, and what is strategic determines how we will compete. What is the value we will deliver to our customers, our shareholders, our partners in the value network and our people? What capabilities will deliver this value? What services and properties must characterize these capabilities in order to deliver this differentiating value?
What is architecturally significant, then, is the decision of technically-experienced, strategically-minded architects of a given system (or set of systems, depending on the scope of the architecture). What is architecturally significant differs from system to system, depending on the kind of system and on the strategy; depending on what value this system will deliver and how it will support the differentiated identity of the business and its products or services. How we will differentiate dictates what hard problems we will tackle, where we will innovate, and where we must be ahead of competition. And it allows us to accept good-enough along those dimensions where we are not trying to create competitive advantage. Of course, even "good enough" may be challenging, especially when taken in conjunction with where we aim to differentiate.
So architecture helps us manage complexity and cost of change, and deliver differentiating value in alignment with our business and product strategy. Architecturally significant decisions are those that the architect (or architecture team) needs to make in order to address these concerns (strategy, complexity, and cost of change). They generally include the high-level decomposition of the system and address cross-cutting concerns. What we do is driven by our business strategy, how we do it is driven by cost of change.
Although these decisions about architectural significance and relative priorities are the responsibility of the architects, they, like the architecture design decisions, are not best made by the architects in isolation. They are best made by the architects in collaboration with the stakeholders they need to partner with for the system to succeed in delivering differentiating value. These stakeholders include customers and business leaders responsible for business longevity and competitiveness in capital markets, and they include those in the development community (project managers, developers, test/quality engineers, etc.).
ARCHitect, Again
The architect then, makes decisions that require system-wide scope of visibility and responsibility. And the architect also spans the chasm that has existed between "the business" and IT or R&D. Over-arching, bridging the divides, spanning the boundaries. No wonder it takes more than technical prowess, but strategy, leadership, and political skills too!
Saturday, July 12, 2008
WHAT AN ARCHITECT CAN DO FOR YOU
Whether you’re dreaming of a new home or planning a complex commercial development, the key to ensuring that your vision becomes reality is the same: Involve an architect early.
Architecture involves much more than buildings. Architects take your vision and give it form, explore its possibilities, raise it to new levels, and then integrate it into your building site and the community at large. They bring not only design, but solutions. For example, buildings currently account for over 40 percent of energy conservation in the U.S. Architects, using sustainable design practices, can help negate these effects. In fact, AIA members, through their Institute, have committed to making all new and renovated buildings carbon neutral by 2030. So tap the knowledge, efficiency, environmental awareness, and brilliant design that architects bring to any project. The sooner you bring an architect on board, the more fully your vision can be realized - even exceeding your own expectations. For a quick overview, select the building type most closely matching your project:
Commercial Development
Schools
Government & Community
Healthcare
A Home for Yourself
Residential Development
-->
To discover how an architect can further enrich the type of project you have in mind, proceed with your search. You only need ask.
Architecture involves much more than buildings. Architects take your vision and give it form, explore its possibilities, raise it to new levels, and then integrate it into your building site and the community at large. They bring not only design, but solutions. For example, buildings currently account for over 40 percent of energy conservation in the U.S. Architects, using sustainable design practices, can help negate these effects. In fact, AIA members, through their Institute, have committed to making all new and renovated buildings carbon neutral by 2030. So tap the knowledge, efficiency, environmental awareness, and brilliant design that architects bring to any project. The sooner you bring an architect on board, the more fully your vision can be realized - even exceeding your own expectations. For a quick overview, select the building type most closely matching your project:
Commercial Development
Schools
Government & Community
Healthcare
A Home for Yourself
Residential Development
-->
To discover how an architect can further enrich the type of project you have in mind, proceed with your search. You only need ask.
DIFINITION OF ARCHITECT
Architect is a word with a specific definition; the word is defined as "a person who designs buildings and supervises their construction" but is also defined as "any builder or planner" in Websters new world dictionary.
For Mr. Gates to use the word to describe himself and his role at Microsoft is appropriate use of the English language. It is generally the intent of the law however that regulates the practice of Architecture in the US to reserve the word "Architect" for the use of individuals who practice Architecture, defined as "the art or science and profession or "trade" of designing & constructing buildings".
The real issue is not with Mr. Gates but rather with the large number of unqualified, unlicensed and unexamined persons in the US that earn their living through "the art, science and profession of designing & constructing buildings". Such parishioners are bad for the profession of architecture and our built environment.
Such common design activity by the unqualified, unexamined and unlicensed "building designer" is openly supported in this nation by the construction industry, and such practice is very serious since it affects directly the practice of architecture, allowing lay people who have no architectural qualifications, to masquerade as persons with “architectural expertise".
Our building departments must stop permitting projects by such persons. Our cities are smothered with the enduring consequences of permitting this particular "fraud" to come to form.
The unqualified, unexamined and unlicensed certainly have no business passing judgments and approvals on professional work, or designing, or permitting, or constructing buildings without a licensed professional appropriately involved in the role to protect the public welfare. That is after all the purpose that license law for architects was created.
The AIA should communicate a clear position on this matter & take serious action regarding such practice and related persons, the AIA should communicate its concerns and interests to the state licensing boards and through them to the building departments. We should stop such practice of slipping around the intent of the law. We should require an Architects stamp on all technical submissions nation wide on every building permitted and constructed.
For Mr. Gates to use the word to describe himself and his role at Microsoft is appropriate use of the English language. It is generally the intent of the law however that regulates the practice of Architecture in the US to reserve the word "Architect" for the use of individuals who practice Architecture, defined as "the art or science and profession or "trade" of designing & constructing buildings".
The real issue is not with Mr. Gates but rather with the large number of unqualified, unlicensed and unexamined persons in the US that earn their living through "the art, science and profession of designing & constructing buildings". Such parishioners are bad for the profession of architecture and our built environment.
Such common design activity by the unqualified, unexamined and unlicensed "building designer" is openly supported in this nation by the construction industry, and such practice is very serious since it affects directly the practice of architecture, allowing lay people who have no architectural qualifications, to masquerade as persons with “architectural expertise".
Our building departments must stop permitting projects by such persons. Our cities are smothered with the enduring consequences of permitting this particular "fraud" to come to form.
The unqualified, unexamined and unlicensed certainly have no business passing judgments and approvals on professional work, or designing, or permitting, or constructing buildings without a licensed professional appropriately involved in the role to protect the public welfare. That is after all the purpose that license law for architects was created.
The AIA should communicate a clear position on this matter & take serious action regarding such practice and related persons, the AIA should communicate its concerns and interests to the state licensing boards and through them to the building departments. We should stop such practice of slipping around the intent of the law. We should require an Architects stamp on all technical submissions nation wide on every building permitted and constructed.
WHAT'S IN A NAME
by Gregory B. Hancks, Esq., AIA
Several years ago, Bill Gates caused a stir by deciding to call himself Microsoft’s chief software architect. Now, the company credentials “practicing architects” in information technology through the Microsoft Certified Architect Program. A Web search for architect jobs is likely to turn up many more positions for software designers than building designers.
The AIA General Counsel’s Office periodically receives questions about whether something can be done about such nontraditional uses of the term “architect.” Naturally, we have an interest in matters that affect AIA members and the architecture profession—plus, the AIA has established policy on use of the term (see item 13 here ). But the AIA does not control architectural licensing requirements. In the U.S., state and territorial governments set the laws covering the use of the term “architect.”
In Microsoft’s home state of Washington, Wash. Rev. Code § 18.08.310 provides:
“It is unlawful for any person … to use in connection with his or her name … the word ‘architect,’ ‘architecture,’ ‘architectural,’ or language tending to imply that he or she is an architect, unless the person is registered or authorized to practice in the state of Washington under this chapter. The provisions of this section shall not affect the use of the words ‘architect,’ ‘architecture,’ or ‘architectural’ where a person does not practice or offer to practice architecture.”
The statute further defines the “practice of architecture” as the “rendering of services in connection with the art and science of building design ….” (Wash. Rev. Code § 18.08.320). As a result, under Washington law, one could conclude that computer software designers may lawfully call themselves “software architects.”
The model licensing law the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards (NCARB) publishes for use by the state boards is not quite as explicit as the Washington statute but would produce the same result. Section I A of NCARB’s Legislative Guidelines states that:
“no person not registered should be permitted … to use the title ‘architect’ when offering to perform any of the services which the practice of architecture comprises or in circumstances which could lead a reasonable person to believe that such services were being offered.”
Nevertheless some states have statutes that appear to be more restrictive. A Texas statute, for example, provides that no one other than licensed architects or their firms may use “any form of the word ‘architect’ or ‘architecture’ in its name or to describe services it offers or performs in Texas” (22 Tex. Admin. Code § 1.123(c)). (This does not mean, however, that the Texas Board of Architectural Examiners actually enforces this restriction with respect to software designers.)
Knowing this won’t make it any easier to scroll through all of the software designer jobs when looking for architect positions. But perhaps some comfort can be had when traveling to San Antonio for the AIA’s convention this year knowing that we will be meeting in a state that hasn’t formally diluted the title of architect.
Several years ago, Bill Gates caused a stir by deciding to call himself Microsoft’s chief software architect. Now, the company credentials “practicing architects” in information technology through the Microsoft Certified Architect Program. A Web search for architect jobs is likely to turn up many more positions for software designers than building designers.
The AIA General Counsel’s Office periodically receives questions about whether something can be done about such nontraditional uses of the term “architect.” Naturally, we have an interest in matters that affect AIA members and the architecture profession—plus, the AIA has established policy on use of the term (see item 13 here ). But the AIA does not control architectural licensing requirements. In the U.S., state and territorial governments set the laws covering the use of the term “architect.”
In Microsoft’s home state of Washington, Wash. Rev. Code § 18.08.310 provides:
“It is unlawful for any person … to use in connection with his or her name … the word ‘architect,’ ‘architecture,’ ‘architectural,’ or language tending to imply that he or she is an architect, unless the person is registered or authorized to practice in the state of Washington under this chapter. The provisions of this section shall not affect the use of the words ‘architect,’ ‘architecture,’ or ‘architectural’ where a person does not practice or offer to practice architecture.”
The statute further defines the “practice of architecture” as the “rendering of services in connection with the art and science of building design ….” (Wash. Rev. Code § 18.08.320). As a result, under Washington law, one could conclude that computer software designers may lawfully call themselves “software architects.”
The model licensing law the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards (NCARB) publishes for use by the state boards is not quite as explicit as the Washington statute but would produce the same result. Section I A of NCARB’s Legislative Guidelines states that:
“no person not registered should be permitted … to use the title ‘architect’ when offering to perform any of the services which the practice of architecture comprises or in circumstances which could lead a reasonable person to believe that such services were being offered.”
Nevertheless some states have statutes that appear to be more restrictive. A Texas statute, for example, provides that no one other than licensed architects or their firms may use “any form of the word ‘architect’ or ‘architecture’ in its name or to describe services it offers or performs in Texas” (22 Tex. Admin. Code § 1.123(c)). (This does not mean, however, that the Texas Board of Architectural Examiners actually enforces this restriction with respect to software designers.)
Knowing this won’t make it any easier to scroll through all of the software designer jobs when looking for architect positions. But perhaps some comfort can be had when traveling to San Antonio for the AIA’s convention this year knowing that we will be meeting in a state that hasn’t formally diluted the title of architect.
WHAT IS ARCHITECTURE
Architecture is the art or practice of designing and building structures, especially habitable ones. Architects have a key role in the shaping of our environment. They are involved in design activities that range in scale from city and community design to house and furniture design. They work in with planners, engineers, and graphic designers. They work in large and small offices in both the public and private sector.
Here's what the American architect, Frank Lloyd Wright, had to say about Architecture:
"What is architecture anyway? Is it the vast collection of the various buildings which have been built to please the varying taste of the various lords of mankind? I think not.
"No, I know that architecture is life; or at least it is life itself taking form and therefore it is the truest record of life as it was lived in the world yesterday, as it is lived today or ever will be lived. So architecture I know to be a Great Spirit....
"Architecture is that great living creative spirit which from generation to generation, from age to age, proceeds, persists, creates, according to the nature of man, and his circumstances as they change. That is really architecture."
—Frank Lloyd Wright, from In the Realm of Ideas, edited by Bruce Brooks Pfeiffer and Gerald Nordland
Here's what the American architect, Frank Lloyd Wright, had to say about Architecture:
"What is architecture anyway? Is it the vast collection of the various buildings which have been built to please the varying taste of the various lords of mankind? I think not.
"No, I know that architecture is life; or at least it is life itself taking form and therefore it is the truest record of life as it was lived in the world yesterday, as it is lived today or ever will be lived. So architecture I know to be a Great Spirit....
"Architecture is that great living creative spirit which from generation to generation, from age to age, proceeds, persists, creates, according to the nature of man, and his circumstances as they change. That is really architecture."
—Frank Lloyd Wright, from In the Realm of Ideas, edited by Bruce Brooks Pfeiffer and Gerald Nordland
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)