"Here's a thought :"

Often enough as a student one is faced with the dilemma of a ‘study’ and its architecture. And often enough one mistakes architecture to belong, thus making ‘space’. And thus adhering to a ‘context’. I had invented the same dilemmas in my thesis as well closing options for the flexibility of an experiment. Because somewhere if architecture needs to start borrowing from other art-related faculties or absolutely any other faculty at all, there needs to be a release from ‘place’ or what we call ‘an environment’. Because to express in the ‘real’ is just the tactility of architecture and when one tries to mould the inherent logic of one discipline into the expression of another, I really don’t know what the language of communication remains. I believe architecture needs to be ‘established’ (and when I say established, I mean organized into), more fluid dimensions, at least of expression, if not of understanding built form itself.
One random definition of architecture I came across was - ‘(It is) a subjective mapping from a human perspective of the elements or components of some kind of structure or system, which preserves the relationships among the elements/components.’ What is significant here is the use of the word ‘subjective’, which in its own way relates back to context, to belong within set parameters.. further architecture belongs within relationships, which to me means order, hierarchy, system, so never really releasing itself from ‘being’. Then how is it that there exists such a concept as the spacio-temporal, the so called flexibility of architecture or the architecture of a non-commital form? These ofcourse do belong and exist, much beyond just being terms and the best example is that of a film/movie. Where a 3 dimensional space actually belongs within two dimensions and it is your imagination that is creating the third dimension, making the formative third dimension an actual dependent on time. Making time itself the third dimension of space. And since that is ever changing, it gives birth to space which isn't essentially permanent/tactile but yet not non-existant. That then puts me on the debate that is imagination the only essential to such architecture. Does that mean that architecture can be read only if it chooses to be explicit. Or else it becomes self – referential, imaginary, fictitious, a non-real entity?
I don’t really know the answer to the question, but then is event architecture a reality? Or is 'program' the maximum that an event can go to before 'architecture' takes over?!