In a message dated 12/27/99 5:35:12 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:

<< Also, why not work actively on defining 'architecture' as the outcome, not
as the discipline or what architects do. >>

From Webster's 3rd we find:

Architecture 1: the art or science of building; specif: the art or practice
of designing and building structures, esp. habitable structures, in
accordance with principles determined by aesthetic and practical or material
considerations

Craft 2: (#1 is obsolete) skillfulness in planning, making or executing  3a:
an occupation, trade or pursuit requiring manual dexterity or the application
of artistic skill

Talk about a Frankenstien monster! Not only can't we disassociate the
architect from the outcome (as much as we would like to!), we have to entrust
him with understanding the principles of the practical use of materials. Then
we have to let him sign the painting we have just finished! It's enough to
get your goat. What about...

Trade (as occupation)  1: an occupation requiring manual or mechanical skill
and training : a craft in which only skilled workers are employed

Sounds to me like "craft" is the wrong word in any font.

How about?

Convergence: The Trades and Architecture

Sorry 'bout the dead horse. Wanna borrow my whip?

Rudy