// i have been arguing from a very different understanding, e.g., the
.us
// act (Brian, do you realise your copyright act allows one to by
default
// GPL architecture?) and the one in the United Kingdom
An ''architectural work'' is the design of a building as embodied in
any
tangible medium of expression, including a building, architectural
plans, or
drawings. The work includes the overall form as well as the
arrangement and
composition of spaces and elements in the design, but does not include
individual standard features.
i didn't know this, and it doesn't seem to be the professional
interpretation of 'architecture', even legally, here, as it seems
to focus on the word 'architect' rather, and issues of liability
related to the design of a building and its consequences, if
something should fail- that the architect to be responsible.
in this sense, 'architect' is a legal term that cannot be used
by someone just making ideas (architectural works, say) and
architectural works, also, would seem in another very broad
realm of 'building' in that one could question 'building the
earth' (as Pierre de Chardin's book title did) or Buckminster
Fuller's Spaceship Earth which may be meta-systems or
some interdisciplinary 'architecture' (planetary, etc) not
bounded by the idea of a discrete work or building, though
the 'plan' or 'logic' or something may be this, in some way--
what ties the idea of architecture to its many extensions/
representations. what is also common is for people to call
themselves 'architect', such as software architect, information
architect, etc. who use it as a descriptor, yet those who study
and consider architecture greatly yet are not professionals
(accredited, legal courses and documentation to practice in
each state) have no real legitimacy within the current way
of considering the field-- well beyond buildings, and back
to basic questions of the field. in a sense, it is a locked-in
perspective, a view that has become predominant and at
once bureaucratized (professionalized/managed)-- this is
likely in a different way from what you are writing about,
yet one need only look at the WTC & memorial to see the
state of 'professional' architecture establishment and its
architectural 'products' in the .US today. they are less of
'works' as ideas than 'works' as marketed commodities by
design specialists/stylists. which leaves little 'architecture'
in its richness, in the culture, to be foundational for tapping
into issues related to it (such as, say, global warming and
building design, but not trapped in the language of style,
or ideology of period movements or schools of thought).
Brian
brian thomas carroll: research-design-development
architecture, education, electromagnetism
http://www.electronetwork.org/bc/