Architecture has always been spoken of as part of the world of art. The architecture must not necessarily have specific methods in order to be called architecture. Likewise the best architecture should not necessarily come from a great architect. It's the touch of this name. A varied touch.
Observing the architects, engineers, mathematicians and workers all come together in the reconstruction of the great Parthenon brings in mind many aspects of classic architecture. When talking about architecture and you should not have specific methods I mention it by this vivid example. Perhaps they are similar to those of now or also those of now are the evolution of many of the old ones. But at the time they used everything they could to create structural works of greater impact even than many of today's. Be it dirt, sticks, debris, hundreds of men, take as long as they went all the way for a single piece of one structure.
As another example, the dome crowns in Florence the great cathedral of Santa Maria de Fiore which came not exactly from an architect but from an goldsmith. An obre and idea that even many architects have observed for time to manage to understand the master mind behind such. It is not an architect who believes who by trade and name must create a structural work but art in the person who creates a number and not only a number but idealizes its form, context and being such. Even if it is confusing everything around it can serve to be able to create new things in architecture or even break boundaries in it. In the same way that it happens in cathedrals and in many classic structures.
Architecture as an art and thought can vary and evolve in a thousand ways. The biggest example of this is the most remarkable structures around the world. Still, it doesn't mean that its most primitive form isn't one that's left in history alone. For me it would be the opposite. It is the best in the history of architecture.
Comentarios