I don't get it. Are you explaining the meaning of word and separate its function as a job title?

For what it's worth, the word architect originates from the Greek word "architectu", or master builder or master carpenter. So architecture really does refer specifically to the design of buildings. It's really only relatively recently that the term architecture has been applied to non-building/non-construction disciplines, because the word immediately brings to mind the concept of "design".

And it really gets under the skin of licensed professional Architects when people who have nothing to do with the design of buildings and structures employ that title since it is a lengthy and onerous process to obtain licensing. It is similar to people who like to represent themselves as engineers, even though they do not have a degree in an engineering field nor any qualifications.

IMHO, I think it's really more accurate to talk about something's "design" rather than its "architecture" unless you are referring to a building or structure. Then again, that may be because I studied both architecture and engineering in school.

With that being said, I did like the video itself in terms of its presentation and its design. It all flowed really well from scene to scene. I'm curious as to what app was used to create it, too.

Nice video!
I think they used After Effects to create it.

Really liked the animation, and the way it clearly separates the difference between "architecture" and "design".
The way you explain it, it really reminds me of Plato's world of ideas, and the "cuppiness" of the cup. I'm not sure if that sounds proper in english, though ;-)

Operator 7G:
I'm no latin or greek expert, but I do speak a Latin-greek romance language and for that matter, I believe you are mistaken by saying "the word architect originates from the Greek word "architectu", or master builder or master carpenter."

The word in greek is "arkhitektôn", "architectu" is latin, and they both stand for "architect"
But as far as greek origins, "arkhi" usually stands for something that is "main" or "principal" like in arch-enemy. As in both languages, the meaning of main and principal is related to foundations, one can see that it can relate to, in a broader sense, the core of an idea as exposed in the animation. As far as "tekton", it refers to construction or building, but again in a broader sense like something that has been created.
That way, it's possible to understand architecture as the main construction of something. And by that I have to admit that the word "structure" you used, is quite like it. The point being, whoever created the animation, did their research...

I think this totally under mind my study as an Industrial Designer that's why I'm confuse. Operator7G, your explanation is much more inline with my thinking. I can see people misunderstanding this video in many way but it brings out some core value as an architecture.

Love it.

ok, and what actually is architecture ?

a cup---> there's a problem to solve.
a building ----> start with a problem and quickly become several n complex problems. to solve.
comparing to design (or other art ), conceptually the principle is the same. operating strategies is the same. The difference between Architecture and other arts is that Architecture is theirs mother.

Very good guys...
Just great!

Thx.

deep!

Awesome piece of movie and explanation. Architecture in the very broad sense applies to anything in life :-) We just have to see it this way!

that is design ! correction this doesn't even describe design.

architecture as a very basic definition is about the design of spatial environments within a social and cultural context.

architects operate in a context for a need to act.

... I could go on.

the cup, in a reductionist view, is the solution to a predefined problem. a building however can not be seen as a design solution, rather it is a form of problem addressing. the design of buildings is at once the generation of a solution and a problem.

our passion is architectural film making and this is a film about architectural process of making of architecture. Thanks for the engaging story we will be passing this around to others.

Having an Architectural background myself (BDA University of Florida) I was a little disappointed (and somewhat offended) by the simplistic nature of this video. For many of us with a design background, it generates intellectual conversations as the one above, but for those who have no idea about the practice and art that is Architecture, it creates an oversimplified idea of what for some of us, is almost a religion. The video is not simple, but simplistic. Architecture is so much more than assigning a few principles to things. Whatever happened to the HUGE importance of things such as philosophy, social sciences, technology, politics, history music and art in Architecture?? This video ignores them all...Other than that, I enjoyed the visuals.

Nathalia> I agree entirely. To me, this video is a sermon on essentialism and has nothing to do with architecture. Essentialism -- the idea that there is a specific set of parameters that all things of a certain class can be reduced to or constructed by -- is a thread in architecture, as it is in many other art forms and intellectual disciplines (not the least of which is philosophy)... there are entire histories of art and architecture that are based on the rejection of essentialism and, as it turns out, essentialism is not too difficult to refute. See structuralism, post-structuralism, deconstructivism, etc.

To put it more simply, if you pause the Maya video, you will surely encounter at least one object that begs the question: "Is that a cup, or is it more of a mug?" or "Isn't that more like a pitcher?"

Voila, the whole case for essentialism goes out the window. As it turns out, the things that make a cup a cup are not so easy to identify, and those parameters exist within a fluid metaphysical space. There are elements of materiality, dimension, proportion, psychology, linguistics, and perception (to name only a few) that all conspire to dismantle essentialism.

FAIL.

(Nice graphics though.)

From the video:

"If you were to think a little bit more deeply about the design of the cup, and extract the essence of what makes that cup a cup, and then really specify those principles... ...all of those cup designs, though, would be based on the same principles that comprise the cup's architecture. That set of principles, that is Architecture."

According to the syllogistic logic of your own words:

1) Extract essence of cup
2) Apply principles of that essence to design methodology
3) Observe how all designs are reducible to the same set of essential principles.
4) Declare the set of essential principles equivalent to the abstract notion of architecture.

I don't see how you could NOT identify this as an essentialist doctrine. If you're talking about design, and what makes a cup a good cup, then just say so in your argument. But you would no longer be talking about architecture as a discipline, methodology, or object, and therefore you would have to make a completely different argument.

And for the record, "architecture" never has been and never will be a word that I guard jealously. I'm happy to let IT professionals and city officials use it whatever ways they find it relevant to their own disciplines. I just have to put in my two cents when I see someone try to define the word so narrowly and with such an authoritative tone.

You have a way with words and you are very skilled conceptual animators. I like the visual style and the way your visuals complement the argument. I just disagree with your argumentation.