Architecture vs. Information Architecure: WAS [Sigia-l] The 3Factors of I/A

[sgp]

B,
A long history does not a concrete definition make. I would posit quite the
contrary. Take for example the definition of art, arguably an engagement
preceding architecture, but again has an even more slippery definition. Or
how about this one, define beauty? You could drive yourself mad. All these
definitions are tied to contexts, instances, etc that the kind of concrete
definition you seek is not possible, in my opinion. That's why in
architecture school you spend a lot of time looking at examples, making
things, having critiques. The definition, as Heidegger might have said, is
always already in a state of becoming. It isn't something to be separated
out like oil in water. I hope I am being clear.
[sgp]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Boniface Lau" <boniface_lau at compuserve.com>
To: "sgp" <somebody at sgp-7.net>; <sigia-l at mail.asis.org>
Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2003 7:11 PM
Subject: RE: Architecture vs. Information Architecure: WAS [Sigia-l] The
3Factors of I/A


> > From: sigia-l-admin at asis.org [mailto:sigia-l-admin at asis.org]On
> > Behalf Of sgp
> >
> > B,
> > A crude and simple answer or rather proposal is that architecture is
> > an expression, manifestation or inquiry beyond the strictly
> > functional requirements of shelter or building.
>
> "Expression, manifestation, or inquiry" is very vague and abstract.
> Would you give a much more concrete definition of architecture?
>
> A good definition expresses the innermost essence of a thing and
> prevents us from taking particular properties for the thing itself.
> Thus, two persons applying the same definition of architecture to the
> same building will come to the same conclusion that such and such is
> that building's architecture.
>
>
> > Structure can and often is inseparable from architecture, I don't
> > mean literally, again when it extends beyond its functional duties.
> > These are only starting points of what could be a long and
> > potentially boring discussion, of lectures I sat through in
> > undergrad architecture school, etc. Do you really want to rehash
> > this here and now?
>
> Such rehash is necessary for teaching someone to become an architect.
> But for communicating the innermost essence of what architecture is, I
> thought a concrete definition would do.
>
> I believe that a definition's concreteness reflects how well
> understood is the essence. The more abstract is a definition, the less
> we really understood the essence.
>
> Human beings have been engaging in building architecture since stone
> age. I thought the many thousands of years of practice would have
> nailed down the essence of what architecture is. Thus, I was expecting
> from architects a very concrete definition of architecture.
>
>
> > I don't understand its relevance to this group unless you now
> > attempt to make some bridge across mediums. In the same way the
> > analog 3D metaphoric desktop
>
> Brett Ingram had said that most architects could tell us what the
> architecture is in Building Architecture. Thus I thought it might help
> Information Architecture to define its concept of architecture by
> observing how a mature field like Building Architecture approaches
> that definition.
>
> Of course, I do not expect Information Architecture to have the same
> architecture definition as that in Building Architecture. Just the
> approach toward its definition may be of value.
>
>
> Boniface
>