Enclosing space for a purpose.

What if the space has a purpose but is not enclosed or the other way round , an enclosing space with no purpose. Is it still architecture?

what if the enclosing space is said to have no purpose yet the very act of enclosing a space imparts the purpose of space enclosure upon the enclosed space, is that still architecture?

What if the space has a purpose but is not enclosed
then its landscape urbanism

What if the space enclosed yet has no purpose
then its an abandoned architecture for urban explorers

what if the enclosing space is said to have no purpose yet the very act of enclosing a space imparts the purpose of space enclosure upon the enclosed space, is that still architecture?  As long as the act of enclosing is architectural, yes

Where purpose does not necessarily mean function, correct?

Aesthetic organization of practical reality.

 "architecture",is it more likely to be an "act" or an "object"?? 

To expand on Frac's comment then, is the box which Schrödinger's cat got stuck in considered "architecture?"  Maybe it's more industrial design, since it's not enclosing enough space.  Maybe architecture for a cat is not architecture at all.  Maybe since the box never actually existed it can't be called "architecture" at all.

For Joker, purpose does not necessary mean function. And to answer Unknown Amateur, architecture more as an "act". It will be restrictive to consider architecture as an object ( graspable , portable, containable).