I'd say that my profession ends where architectural thinking ends - architectural thinking in terms of thinking about programs and organizational structure. These abstractions play a role in many other disciplines, and those disciplines are now defining their 'architectures' as well.
Whether it's the experiments on 'MythBusters' or my earlier work in special effects for movies, I've regularly had to do things that were never done before, from designing complex motion-control rigs to figuring out how to animate chocolate.
Sportswear and activewear have been evolving over the years, and what makes it interesting is how you reflect the culture in which we're living in - whether it's creating clothing for a certain sport or creating new materials that we think athletes or people who are physical want to wear.
I went to school for engineering, I studied jazz. So I always had this kind of creative side and technical side, and I thought architecture might be the way to combine them, so I went to architecture school in New York.
I like engineering, but I love the creative input.
The physicality of a production needs evolution and breath.
Building the machine for 'Speed' was fun, as was working on the 'Spitfire' programme. They are programmes I enjoyed being on, but they are not my job.
The other thing I felt was that the philosophical concept behind the experiences also looked like it had been designed by technicians and not by entertainers. I felt I needed to grab hold of it and try and push the envelope as much as I possibly could right now.
I have been in the business long enough to know what an intense amount of work it takes to operate a theater company.
Studying technical design and art gave me the ability to see things in 3-D.
If you focus on design, you can call yourself a designer. If you focus on the implementation of your design, you can call yourself an architect.
