Talk:Architecture

This article ought to be about building architecture, but about half of it is about unrelated $Foo Architecture, where the word "architecture" is really just a metaphor. e.g. (real) architecture has no equivalent of data sharding; systems architecture has no equivalent of cornices.

IMO those sections should be replaced by a simple bullet list, like

   ## "Architecture" in Other Disciplines
   * Computer architecture is ...
   * Enterprise architecture is ...

Instead, let's have some more details about real architecture, especially paradigms and architects outside the anglosphere!

203.7.155.119 (talk) 00:35, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Architecture and building are 2 different subjects. Reducing architecture to construction, it is like reducing engineering to building or like reducing the art of decorating or painting to construction.

We are living in the 21st Century. Contemporary Architecture cannot be reduced to physical construction; it cannot be reduced to a final building. Architecture is space (in its different states and meanings), forms, organisation, communication, design, nature ... I am renaming the Section "Other terms" to "other categories".

Reducing the term "Architecture" to building or construction would be a narrow minded decision. It would reduce the Wiki article to a superficial and vulgar definition. In my opinion the article is already too focus on construction and building. In the 21st century, construction and building should be a sub-category to define the term "Architecture". The terms "computer architecture" or "cognitive architecture" or "software architecture" and others, are not metaphors, they are true representations of the architectural state. Can we reduce the term "Structure" to building structures? Why should we do so for the term "architecture"? Architectures are meaningful complex structures which are not limited to buildings, gardens, interiors or naval design.

--Christophe Krief (talk) 10:20, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree that Architecture is and can be used in various other contexts. But I feel that this article is focused on building/design/construction. There is ample space on the page Architecture_(disambiguation) for listing other uses of the term. There it also reads "Architecture is the art and science of designing and constructing buildings and other structure for human use and shelter." with a link to this page. It is very inconsistent and confusing for the reader to then list again other uses of the term (which are also not contributing to the article but rather are extended links to other wiki-pages). In my opinion all these should be deleted and moved to the disamibuation page, maybe with the exception of landscape architecture and interior architecture.

If "Architecture" is understood as a very abstract process of composing various elements into a spatial order, with buidling being only one expression of it, the entire article would need to be rewritten in this direction. I would not support such a change because it pushes the understanding of architecture too far away from the mainstream. I would agree to a section on how the term has been used in other disciplines, but that should not be longer than a paragraph or two.

Christoph Michels (talk) 09:22, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Agreed - unless anyone objects I will remove these soon. Johnbod (talk) 15:39, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Would it be possible to discuss this issue further? Architecture is not only a building or the building resulting of a design. The term is not used as a metaphor to define the functioning of the brain or elaboration of a thought or an abstract organisation. Architecture is not a material form. It is a principle, a process or a concept leading to an organisation or a system. I would like you to consider the "structure" article on Wikipedia which is not focused on the materialistic definition of the term but extends in a modern and informative way. Why should it be different for "Architecture"?--Christophe Krief (talk) 00:09, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Actually it is used for all sorts of things. I did this edit to reflect the discussion above. Would you want all that stuff back? Johnbod (talk) 11:37, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply. I do not want to start a dispute, so I was hoping that this issue would be opened for discussion. Why should we limit this article to the material aspect of architecture? We could have an article titled Architecture (building) in the same way than Architecture (computer) or Architecture (business), Architecture (software) and so on. In the disambiguation page, Architecture should not be defined as "the art and science of designing and constructing buildings and other structure for human use and shelter" because this is only a partial definition of the term. Architecture relates to much more than this. Yes I would like to see the other architectures re-integrated in this article; but most of all, I would like to see this article and the disambiguation page modernised to reflect the use of the term today. The main page should include proportionally for all the definition of the term. A page should be created with the title "Architecture (building)" because it is the only way for Wikipedia to provide a contemporary definition of the term as it is already done for the article "structure". I believe that if this is done in the English Wikipedia, the other languages will soon follow. --Christophe Krief (talk) 22:59, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I think the most common understanding of the term architecture (when not qualifying it with another word such as in "business architecture", "architecture of the brain", etc) is that is about buildings. Examples of usage: "I am employing an architect", "I am studying architecture", "Royal Institute of British Architects": I think that the usual assumption would these were all to do with buildings.

Is architecture as a general concept actually notable WP:N? I have tried searching on "architecture as a concept" and "the concept of architecture" but I can only find things like "architectural concepts", which are to do with buildings.

I think that the case of structure is different. For one thing, just using "structure" on its own does not bring to mind any particular type of structure. Also, structure might not itself be notable.

FrankSier (talk) 13:31, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Hello there, I wish to offer a suggestion to the following edit because it is important to state the true essence of the word. As a native Greek, I can offer some insight on the following...

• Chief in Greek is Αρχηγος, it comes from the Αρχη and Ηγώ which literally means First to rule. Architect though is not a ruler-chief literally. I understand how this mistake can be made but as a professional and mature artist, I believe we should make this more clear for the new ones.

• Τέκτων is not the Creator, but a Craftsman which in modern Greek is Τεχνήτης. They all derive from the word Art (Τέχνη) which literally means the result which comes from practical mastery. The difference is that a creator is someone who conceptualizes something, and this does not mean that it can ever be functional or practical. A Craftsman or a real Artist is one who masters a practical deployment through observation which is complimented with repetition, replication, and coherent coverage over what is possible. It would be great if you could also say something about this, but for now, I would just want to say that the etymology could easily change as the following.

please change: Architecture (Latin architectura, from the Greek ἀρχιτέκτων arkhitekton "architect", from ἀρχι- "chief" and τέκτων "creator") is both the process and the product of planning, designing, and constructing buildings and other physical structures.

to: Architecture (Latin architectura, from the Greek ἀρχιτέκτων arkhitekton "architect", from ἀρχι- "first" and τέκτων "craftsman" or "artist") is both the process and the result of mastering a practical function (skill). Although its roots lay over the planning, designing, and building of physical structures, its branches truly expand to all arts and sciences. ____________________________________

In my notes I made the following synthesis which includes references from the above suggestions which other people made: Architecture, the art of forming coherent structures is the highest form of arts. Even if it has been long associated with the act of designing and building physical constructions, its roots lay in the Mastery of Practicality. It got its name from the ancient Greeks who called ἀρχιτέκτων (arkhitekton-architect) those who were Masters at their Craft (from ἀρχι- "first" and τέκτων "craftsman").

Contemporary Architecture cannot be reduced to physical construction. Architecture is space (in its different states and meanings), forms, organization, communication, design, nature. The use of the term architecture also has applications in information technology, in the science of reasoning (logic), as well as in landscapes and naval design. In philosophy, we may speak of the architecture of thought, the architecture of a concept. In neuroscience of the architecture of the brain or the architecture of a nervous system. The term is used in many other professions to define a unifying or coherent form or structure which follows function.

Thank you. Adamapricot (talk) 18:03, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Synthesis is a harder sell to make here, as this is frowned upon in most articles. The sources you have used to reach these conclusions should be provided, in order to double check that this is not the case here.  Spintendo  16:55, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I fully agree with Adamapricot (talk) and his etymological research confirm my understanding of architecture. Architecture is not only a building or the building resulting of a design. The term is not used as a metaphor to define the functioning of the brain or elaboration of a thought or an abstract organisation. Architecture is not a material form. It is a principle, a process or a concept leading to an organisation or a system. --Christophe Krief (talk) 21:59, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

"Add to Historic treatises"

In the mid to late 16th century Italian Mannerist architect, painter and theorist, Sebastiano Serlio, wrote the influential architecture treatise Tutte L’Opere D’Architettura et Prospetiva (1537-75) - “Complete Works on Architecture and Perspective”). The treatise exerted immense influence throughout Europe being the first architectural handbook that emphasized the practical rather than the theoretical aspects of architecture, and it was the first to catalog the five orders. DianaVS2 (talk) 16:12, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough - reference & link please (of course we have an article). Johnbod (talk) 16:18, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 14:11, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Plenty of refs at Serlio article or by quick google. Thanks for the suggestion. Station1 (talk) 07:07, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I've looked at architecture-related articles and this article has the most information about the aesthetics in architecture. I think it would be good to have a dedicated article about it covering both prescriptive (what the relationship should be per Vitruvius, Sullivan and others) and descriptive (what has been considered aesthetically pleasing). I can give it a try but wanted to get some feedback first - maybe it's been covered somewhere already. Alaexis_¿question? 18:37, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I am probing and gathering support to add a section on native American architecture (e.g. Mesoamerican architecture, Andean architecture and elsewhere). The article in general is too biased towards European architecture. For instance, Indian and Chinese architectures are grouped into "Asian", despite being completely separate cradles of civilization. isacdaavid 00:03, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Could someone with edit permission consider deleting "In fact" in the below sentence?

"In fact, During the European Middle Ages, pan-European styles of Romanesque and Gothic cathedrals and abbeys emerged while the Renaissance favored Classical forms implemented by architects known by name."

This sentence isn't an intensification or illustration of the point in the prior sentence, so "In fact" doesn't fit. 131.191.89.1 (talk) 05:02, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done. Station1 (talk) 06:37, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Done thanks for the use 105.112.16.231 (talk) 20:23, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

What is preventing this article from being a B-class article on Wikipedia's content assessment scale? Drocj (talk) 09:42, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Well, it needs to satisfy the first point: "The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations". It's far from well-cited at present. I'm not sure about the other criteria. Praemonitus (talk) 04:41, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

There are seven continents, but nothing in this article applies to Antarctica -- people haven't lived there for very long, and there is no permanent population. "Every continent" might be better, because it doesn't call attention to the "seven." Or I could change it to "all over the world" or "every inhabited continent."

I'll check back for comments in a couple of weeks. Vicki Rosenzweig (talk) 23:28, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

I'd say that the architecture on Antartica is very environment specific, and thus differs somewhat from traditional architecture. There are many web articles on the topic, so it appears notable. Praemonitus (talk) 04:38, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 5 January 2026 and 20 March 2026. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): 19Buddy (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Biologist223, Crashrescuing.

— Assignment last updated by Echeng33 (talk) 02:40, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

From the outset this article defines Architecture as: "the art and technique..." What is this based on? the reference at the end of the definition does not support that claim. I am an architect and nothing about my education or work is pure art. Artistry might come to play during the design method, I could refer to Donald Schon on this, but the profession is not art and since this article is THE article, it should be more nuanced on this. Poure Louzeur (talk) 14:41, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Well there is no set definition of art, but I would definitely say that architecture is an artistic expression. The word 'technique' covers the engineering aspects. What would you use in the place of 'art'? Perhaps 'style'? Praemonitus (talk) 15:13, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. I agree that there isn't a set definition of art, but it has characteristics that architecture lack. Architecture might be confused as Art due to the renaissance when the artist did architecture (as well as engineering, anatomy, philosophy, etc. like a polymath does).

Architecture is a branch of Design, which is methodical, problem-solution oriented and is meant to enhance our surroundings (reference: Lawson, Simon). Art on the other hand affords to be unworldly, exploratory, expressionist, etc.

You say the word technique covers the engineering part. The same thing: engineering isn't architecture. There's a certain relationship between the three elements of architecture: Aesthetics, functionality and structure (Vetruvius, mind the translation) but structure here isn't pure engineering. At my work as an architect I consult engineers because I do not have the qualifications.

So I would rephrase the definition and omit art. I'd start differently. I'd emphasise architecture as a profession, and that architecture is a design practice. ~2026-13580-91 (talk) 15:56, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Engineering can become art, and architecture can become engineering. There are practical arts, architecture is one of them. Art does not have to be purposeless or purely decorative - the design collection of the Museum of Modern Art acknowledges this. But what you really need per Wikipedia policy, is reliable sourcing for how to characterize it, not a debate or objection. Provide sources for a concise definition. Robert Venturi and Mies, not to mention Michelangelo, might have something to say about drawing a line between purposeful design and art. Acroterion (talk) 18:04, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this can be considered RS here. It discussed how art and architecture intersect, and the moment when architecture was first touted as a "social art": in the Congress internationale d’architecture moderne platform.

I think one may need to look into the statements or publications of some architects from countries that do not treat buildings as utilitarian, practical objects but as works of sculptures, such as Le Corbusier and Jean Nouvel. France has high regard on their architectural heritage, and that extends to prohibition of commercial use of photos of public buildings without permissions from the architects. An allusion is found in their 1902 law amending their copyright to include sculptures as protected works. The text explicitly includes works of architects as among the protected sculptural works (buildings as sculptures in the eyes of overprotective Frenchmen). At least in France, buildings with architectural properties are artworks, not mere utilitarian and practical objects as per the common perspective of the Americans. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:12, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

I think the question does not have a clear final answer because niether art nor architecture have clear definitions. Trying to define architecture as art is then meaningless untill we define art. The question nevertheless is important because it is a question of values and what architecture is worth to the architects and to the people. Architecture has taken many shapes and functions throughout history but today it is in trouble being taken away from the reach of the majority to become commodity or asset in the hands of the few, and needs to redefine its role clearly and its responsibility in society. We need to invent a new definition away from the ambiguity of art. I'll add that describing architecture as art is dangerous because, even if it sounds like commendation, it is derogatory, it justify why architects famously earn little in comparison to the work they do. So it is a political question as well.

Overall, it is good that we're talking about it. Maybe there should be a section in this article that lays out this debate. ~2026-14070-69 (talk) 08:41, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Saying that Engineering can become art is purely metaphorical like saying that medicin can be art. When Art could describe anything it looses it's meaning.

"Art does not have to be purposeless or purely decorative": Art is never purposeless! Art is extremely powerful. ~2026-14070-69 (talk) 08:48, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

The first sentence is taken directly from the Britannica article on this subject, so it can be considered a copyright violation. For that reason alone it should be re-written. Some other examples:

• "the art or practice of designing and building structures and especially habitable ones"
• "the art and practice of designing and making buildings"
• "Architecture is the art of planning, designing, and constructing buildings"

Praemonitus (talk) 15:05, 5 March 2026 (UTC)