Defining Architecture
There are a number of inadequate and (therefore?) fairly tortured definitions for the word “architecture”. They all seem to miss what I consider to be the main point and to focus instead on methods or motivations for physical construction and the differences in the meaning of the term when used in various domains, e.g. physical structures, information systems, etc.
Whether physical or virtual, architecture is about structure, and first-century Roman architect Vitruvius (author of De architectura) identified its key characteristics as:
- Utilitatis (utility)
- Firmitatis (durability)
- Venustatis (delight or beauty)
Being a software application architect by trade, I have searched for a concise definition that includes virtual as well as physical structure and that gets to the heart of what architects in any domain really do. This search has failed utterly, so [about ten years ago] I developed my own definition, which is:
Architecture — The creation and consistent application of proven solutions to design requirements and problems within a given domain.
Balancing utility, durability, and aesthetics, the architect considers function, form, and structure, carefully seeking to understand, to guide, and to harness their tension and interaction, creating synergy, and allowing no single aspect to overwhelm the others.
I always find it interesting to consider the origins of the familiar terms we use every day without necessarily considering their history. The Greek word from which we get “architecture” is arkhitekton [an Anglicized spelling] — a combination of the Greek root words “arkhi”, meaning “chief” and “tekton” meaning “builder”. The ancients recognized architecture as a field of human endeavor that incorporates such diverse disciplines as art, engineering, psychology, anthropology, and philosophy. Vitruvius states, “Architecture is a science, arising out of many other sciences, and adorned with much and varied learning: by the help of which a judgment is formed of those works which are the result of other arts.” and adds that music, astronomy, and other aesthetic interests or pursuits should be part of the architect’s interest and experience.
One of the most common and widely recognized examples of architecture is the Roman arch. The Romans were admirable in their pragmatism, their insight, and their consistency. When they came across good ideas, regardless of who might have originated them, they recognized them, applied them (often in ways that the original inventor had not envisioned), studied them, refined them, improved them, blended them with other ideas, and implemented them uniformly and persistently. The Romans recognized that the arch could support a lot of weight with a minimum of material (utility), last a long time (durability), and look good doing it (beauty). They refined the design and were always on the lookout for better materials, but they didn’t attempt to invent a new solution each time they needed to hold up something heavy for a long time with a dramatic aesthetic flair and a distinctly Roman accent. Rather, they consistently applied this proven solution in various ways whenever and wherever they needed to support something heavy for a long time and look good doing it — the design requirements and problems in the physical construction of their public spaces and facilities.
Because of this, we see Roman arches stacked to carry water down from mountains to city dwellers in aqueducts and to support and adorn multi-level structures like the Colosseum.
Relatively “shallow” arches (in terms of depth, not height) form doorways and triumphal entries, while deeper “extruded” (or excavated) arches serve as tunnels.
Arches support the great spans of cathedral ceilings and dozens of other uses ranging from more structural to more ornamental.
While the Romans didn’t invent the arch, they excelled at recognizing creative uses for it well beyond the immediate and obvious ones and then at applying the arch consistently. Still more impressive is the fact that a large number of these structures still function and inspire us today.
Encouraging the dynamic flow of people in the static structure of an agora, of water in an aqueduct, or of information in a computer system, punctuating the static lines of a colonnade with a dynamic entryway or in a sea of text with a key image, extending design theory into implementation practice and in turn, informing existing theory with the results of practical experience, architects focus on what things really are (ontology) and how they really relate to each other or put another way, where they belong in a consistent structure (taxonomy) to impose order on chaos and to bridge past and future in ways that are not only useful but that inspire the use of the structures they create and ultimately our imaginations, hopes, and vast human potential.
Copyright © 2010 Douglas A. Wilson
