The (missing) art of IT system architecture

Analyzing the “architecture”  definitions in construction engineering we notice:

• The Oxford English Dictionary
  describes architecture as: “art or practice of designing and constructing
  buildings”

• The Collins Dictionary describes architecture as: “the art of planning,
  designing, and constructing buildings”

• The Merriam-Webster Dictionary describes architecture as  “the art or
  science of building. specifically: the art or practice of designing and
  building structures and especially habitable ones.”

Everywhere is art and somewhere is even science!

In IT,  the ISO/IEC/IEEE 42010:2011 defines system architecture as: “fundamental concepts
or properties of a system in its environment embodied in its elements,
relationships, and in the principles of its design and evolution”.  

At first, we can see, that there is no “art” in IT architecture definition. I don’t know why.

The non-material nature of IT (at minimum in the software part)  should not be a reason – we can
imagine art while listening to music or listening to a poem – the “art” is exposed during the experience, not just reading the music notes. What about software user experience (UX) – is artistic value not one of the criteria?

In my opinion: the missing “art” in the IT architecture definition is very discriminative, for someone who
claims to be an IT architect. And there is an artistic value in IT architecture. Whether someone can notice it or not 😉

Second,  there is no science and practice in IT architecture definition. Looking back at
construction engineering definitions: the Americans stay for science, the British for practice – is anyone surprised?

Anyway, the science in IT is still to come. Look at Santa Maria del Fiore for more info.