I am curious about the use of the term "architect" and the legality of using it outside of what is considered the licensed profession of architecture.
The reason for my query is that I found this webpage ( http://www.logicblaze.com/about.php ) that clearly states two employees as "chief architect" and "architect" although neither has an accredited degree from a school of architecture nor do they hold a license to practice architecture. Indeed both have Computer Science degrees. I am sure there are many similar advertisements for services and products that claim to be "architecture" or architectural and it seems to conflict with the portrayal of the architecture profession as many here would know it.
To be clear, I think that Computer Scientists (and anyone else for that matter) MAY have the ability to design beautiful things perhaps even design and build excellent Architecture. But from a professional standpoint, it seems that this poses an interesting and perhaps troubling problem. It seems to be an unchecked abuse of the terms of one profession (architecture) by another (computer software/hardware design), which could (and probably will) cause significant problems as Architects argue for the validity and importance of their profession as their slice of the pie gets smaller and smaller.
I am considering cross-posting this question on Slashdot as well just to see if I can get different perspectives on the issue.
This is from Merriam Webster....
Architect:
1 : a person who designs buildings and advises in their construction
2 : a person who designs and guides a plan or undertaking <the architect of American foreign policy>
Yep, I hear you, Scott Pobiner. Too bad that they don't call themselves like, "web doctor", or "information lawyer."
the profession in north america is so over-protective over its terminology it approaches the ridiculous.
Seems the folks that design software call themselves architects, that's the lingo, so what. The only really annoying thing about that is when you try to search for an architect on google and half of them turn out to be programmers or chip designers.
i don't think any of you have to worry about the competition from these boys. And you'll be able to call yourself an architect soon enough don't fret. But really, libeskind just got his licence a couple years ago and he never worrired about it. There are a few other superarchitects out there who never bothered with the process at all and no one calls them on it (well, except shigeru ban, poor fella). isa big red herring, jake.
This has bothered me for a while too. The AIA should be involved. If any of you are familiar with the user-provided content dictionary, Urbandictionary.com, the word "architect" now has a second meaning:
"Term used by Microsoft for the act of designing their own graphics and cpu chips for the new console."
call me when they start building "architecture"...i don't think NCARB will even respond, they are not claiming to build residences, schools, office buildings, etc...you are wasting your time.
yeah i hate this too, because looking for a job online gets tedious when sorting through software architects....
I wonder if software engineers calling themselves architects helps us rather than hurts us. I don't think we have to worry about comptetition from them. No one who's looking to get a house built will settle on software instead.
who cares? it's not like you are going to lose work to them. are you going send hate mail to paul wolfowitz for being called a chief architect of the iraq war? well, you might, but not over the term 'architect'.
it's just a word, and the word has been in use by computer science ppl for over a decade. this is hardly anything new.
I think there is a difference. I have no problem with people being called an architect, as in mastermind of a plan such as Paul Wolfowitz. I don't even have a problem with job titles such as "Software Architect", or "Naval Architect", because it clearly makes a distinction. However, I do have a problem with other people assuming the job title of just plain "Architect".
i hear what you are saying ericharch, but again so what? people out there call themselves whatever they want, but do you truly believe that it will hurt your chances of getting work? do you truly believe that people do not understand the difference between what architects do and what they are doing?
this is language drift, where a common metaphor starts to be a convention - and it's natural, seems to me.
the title architect is being coopted all over the place. ncarb are the ones behind the times in trying (in vain) to protect it. we should all be allowed to call ourselved architects of ___, especially if we've completed an architectural education. registration might signal another level of distinction for which ncarb could be gatekeepers, but shouldn't be the landmark for using architect as a descriptive.
someone noted that we don't use 'lawyer' as casually. true. but we use doctor all of the time - for almost anything from cooking to rapping. hell, i even talk about 'surgically' removing things in particularly sensitive selective demolition. doesn't seem to have confused things too much for the medical industry.
'The name is derived from a character in society during the Renaissance Period, known as the Master Builder. The Master Builder often obtained the role of the architect and contractor on projects. His talents were diverse and his accomplishments many.'
ATAS MAN doing his thing..
The AIA did try to get in involved in this several years ago and issued some sort of policy statement on it. I think originally the official opinion was that nobody should be calling themselves "software architect" or similar terms. More recently I think they've backed off on this somewhat and that their current position is that they are only interested in pursuing the mis-use of the term when it is being used to mean architecture as it relates to buildings.
Different states have different laws on this. They also have different tendencies regarding pursuing the offenders. My own state board has stopped people from using "architecture" in the name of a company that provides renderings and CAD work for architects but doesn't have any licensed architect on staff. But they ruled that a computer software company using "architecture" in the title was not in violation of state law.
The thing is, these days departments of computer science usually have sub-departments that are in fact officiallly called "Architecture." It doesn't really seem fair that these people could graduate from such programs and then not be allowed to use this as their own title.
I really don't think that the general public is getting the term confused as it relates to the two different professions.
To call someone who lays down the top level, strategic design and execution plan for a complex project an architect, as in George Marshall was the chief architect of the reconstruction of post-war Europe, or Vint Cerf was a key architect of the internet, or so-and-so is the architect of the Cisco's blah-blah killer router, is to confer unearned, if not undeserved, distinction to the title.
this is such a waste of time for the AIA. Don't we all have enough problems without them spending resource dollars that you (I don't pay them a penny and don't plan to) paid them on fighting this crap?
If you are designing buildings, have an educatin in architecture, you are an architect in everyone's eyes but the AIA. It's just stupid and one more reason this profession keeps alienating themselves from the public (can you imagine how idiotic it sounds to tell someone 'uh, yeah, I went through more than half a decade of architectural education and am designing buildings, but I am not an architect'.) Stupid.
that sounds like me... I went to architecture school, got an architectural degree, work for an architect, doing architecture 40+ hours a week and can't call myself an architect.
Shall I send my identity-complex therapy bills to the AIA? What about NCARB?
It's also sad that there needs to be licensure to call ourselves something.
I disregard worrying about it, with the exception of contracts and printed/web materials. It just sounds like you are a drafter or have no education when you have to correct someone 'well, actually, I am not an 'architect' per se, but rather a, uh, person doing architecture'.
yes its really sad that people give so much importance to titles, but then i can understanding the mentality of people slogging it out for the IDP etc etc while others who do not call themselves architect.
if someone asks me what i do, i just say 'architecture'. 'I went to architecture school and graduated from blah blah blah'.
This issue has always pissed me off. In my country New Zealand and in Australia, there is a move to remove the legal protection of the term "architect", but still protect "registered architect".
Of course in doing this you will have hoards of draughtsman changing their professional status to architect, but it will also mean that people like us will be able to finally call themselves architects.
Hopefully, there will be a strengthening and/or creation of architect organisations and associations, such as the NZIA due to actual architects [only those with a b.arch] and practices seeking to market and distinguish themselves from the aforementioned draughtsman, systems analysts and interior designers...
Hopefully increased memberships, and a strong leadership will allow the architecture community, here at least, to educate the public through advertising, public events, exhibitions etc.
diabase the interesting fact is that hordes of draughtsmen etc still call themselves architects all over the world without a trace of guilt, so the move you are talking about wont affect their lives-they will call themselves architects whatever come.
but it will surely be helpful to people like us who believe that and architect can call him/herself an architect without having to conform to a crappy institution like the NCARB or AIA.
I really don’t think this is an issue. An architect is just someone that makes use of his or her creativity and intelligence in a constructive way. Whether not you create buildings or computer programs is irrelevant. Having a license that gives you a title doesn’t make you anymore competent.
In NZ, you can get dispensation to call yourself an Architectural Designer, so many draughting practices do this.
I refer to myself as an architect, despite a lack of registration, primarily to avoid confusion. I just look forward to calling my business "abc architects" or whatever, without being thumped.
to the following archinecters-
ericarch-if you are not in fact a card carrying architect change your screen name immediately
le bossman- if you are in fact not french nor a bossman change your screen name immediately
evilplatypus- even if you are evil and lay eggs please change your screen name immediately
strawbeary- you can keep your name.
What gives 'em the right?!
I am curious about the use of the term "architect" and the legality of using it outside of what is considered the licensed profession of architecture.
The reason for my query is that I found this webpage ( http://www.logicblaze.com/about.php ) that clearly states two employees as "chief architect" and "architect" although neither has an accredited degree from a school of architecture nor do they hold a license to practice architecture. Indeed both have Computer Science degrees. I am sure there are many similar advertisements for services and products that claim to be "architecture" or architectural and it seems to conflict with the portrayal of the architecture profession as many here would know it.
To be clear, I think that Computer Scientists (and anyone else for that matter) MAY have the ability to design beautiful things perhaps even design and build excellent Architecture. But from a professional standpoint, it seems that this poses an interesting and perhaps troubling problem. It seems to be an unchecked abuse of the terms of one profession (architecture) by another (computer software/hardware design), which could (and probably will) cause significant problems as Architects argue for the validity and importance of their profession as their slice of the pie gets smaller and smaller.
I am considering cross-posting this question on Slashdot as well just to see if I can get different perspectives on the issue.
why do they get to call themselves architects and I cant? doesn't seem right...
I wrote them an e-mail.
This is from Merriam Webster....
Architect:
1 : a person who designs buildings and advises in their construction
2 : a person who designs and guides a plan or undertaking <the architect of American foreign policy>
Yep, I hear you, Scott Pobiner. Too bad that they don't call themselves like, "web doctor", or "information lawyer."
I sent this in an email to NCARB too. I'll post it if I get a response.
kissy_face, good point about not being able to call yourself an architect. If you can blur the line enough you probably can.
the profession in north america is so over-protective over its terminology it approaches the ridiculous.
Seems the folks that design software call themselves architects, that's the lingo, so what. The only really annoying thing about that is when you try to search for an architect on google and half of them turn out to be programmers or chip designers.
i don't think any of you have to worry about the competition from these boys. And you'll be able to call yourself an architect soon enough don't fret. But really, libeskind just got his licence a couple years ago and he never worrired about it. There are a few other superarchitects out there who never bothered with the process at all and no one calls them on it (well, except shigeru ban, poor fella). isa big red herring, jake.
This has bothered me for a while too. The AIA should be involved. If any of you are familiar with the user-provided content dictionary, Urbandictionary.com, the word "architect" now has a second meaning:
"Term used by Microsoft for the act of designing their own graphics and cpu chips for the new console."
You can vote down that particular definition here:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=architect&r=f
call me when they start building "architecture"...i don't think NCARB will even respond, they are not claiming to build residences, schools, office buildings, etc...you are wasting your time.
yeah i hate this too, because looking for a job online gets tedious when sorting through software architects....
....besides in my firm i am the Chief Surgeon......
I wonder if software engineers calling themselves architects helps us rather than hurts us. I don't think we have to worry about comptetition from them. No one who's looking to get a house built will settle on software instead.
who cares? it's not like you are going to lose work to them. are you going send hate mail to paul wolfowitz for being called a chief architect of the iraq war? well, you might, but not over the term 'architect'.
it's just a word, and the word has been in use by computer science ppl for over a decade. this is hardly anything new.
I think there is a difference. I have no problem with people being called an architect, as in mastermind of a plan such as Paul Wolfowitz. I don't even have a problem with job titles such as "Software Architect", or "Naval Architect", because it clearly makes a distinction. However, I do have a problem with other people assuming the job title of just plain "Architect".
i hear what you are saying ericharch, but again so what? people out there call themselves whatever they want, but do you truly believe that it will hurt your chances of getting work? do you truly believe that people do not understand the difference between what architects do and what they are doing?
this is language drift, where a common metaphor starts to be a convention - and it's natural, seems to me.
the title architect is being coopted all over the place. ncarb are the ones behind the times in trying (in vain) to protect it. we should all be allowed to call ourselved architects of ___, especially if we've completed an architectural education. registration might signal another level of distinction for which ncarb could be gatekeepers, but shouldn't be the landmark for using architect as a descriptive.
someone noted that we don't use 'lawyer' as casually. true. but we use doctor all of the time - for almost anything from cooking to rapping. hell, i even talk about 'surgically' removing things in particularly sensitive selective demolition. doesn't seem to have confused things too much for the medical industry.
there is the thing called System architecture - that's why they call themselves - architects. but they are "architects". little mistake ;).
bossman, since you did that one, here is my second choice,
:)
is it a barbapapa?
'The name is derived from a character in society during the Renaissance Period, known as the Master Builder. The Master Builder often obtained the role of the architect and contractor on projects. His talents were diverse and his accomplishments many.'
ATAS MAN doing his thing..
The AIA did try to get in involved in this several years ago and issued some sort of policy statement on it. I think originally the official opinion was that nobody should be calling themselves "software architect" or similar terms. More recently I think they've backed off on this somewhat and that their current position is that they are only interested in pursuing the mis-use of the term when it is being used to mean architecture as it relates to buildings.
Different states have different laws on this. They also have different tendencies regarding pursuing the offenders. My own state board has stopped people from using "architecture" in the name of a company that provides renderings and CAD work for architects but doesn't have any licensed architect on staff. But they ruled that a computer software company using "architecture" in the title was not in violation of state law.
The thing is, these days departments of computer science usually have sub-departments that are in fact officiallly called "Architecture." It doesn't really seem fair that these people could graduate from such programs and then not be allowed to use this as their own title.
I really don't think that the general public is getting the term confused as it relates to the two different professions.
also, war planners are usually referred to as "architects"
You guys are kidding, right? I sure hope so.
To call someone who lays down the top level, strategic design and execution plan for a complex project an architect, as in George Marshall was the chief architect of the reconstruction of post-war Europe, or Vint Cerf was a key architect of the internet, or so-and-so is the architect of the Cisco's blah-blah killer router, is to confer unearned, if not undeserved, distinction to the title.
Don't look a gift horse in the mouth, puleeze.
about twenty dollars gives you the right now....
[imghttp://images.amazon.com/images/P/B0001GU7K6.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg[/img]
oops....
available everywhere!
heh, we are all architects.
anyone who uses a building is an architect my proffessor told me years ago.
this is such a waste of time for the AIA. Don't we all have enough problems without them spending resource dollars that you (I don't pay them a penny and don't plan to) paid them on fighting this crap?
If you are designing buildings, have an educatin in architecture, you are an architect in everyone's eyes but the AIA. It's just stupid and one more reason this profession keeps alienating themselves from the public (can you imagine how idiotic it sounds to tell someone 'uh, yeah, I went through more than half a decade of architectural education and am designing buildings, but I am not an architect'.) Stupid.
that sounds like me... I went to architecture school, got an architectural degree, work for an architect, doing architecture 40+ hours a week and can't call myself an architect.
Shall I send my identity-complex therapy bills to the AIA? What about NCARB?
this reminds me of someone calling themself "sanitation engineer" when they are really a trash-person.
it's sad that we need our titles to make us feel important.
It's also sad that there needs to be licensure to call ourselves something.
I disregard worrying about it, with the exception of contracts and printed/web materials. It just sounds like you are a drafter or have no education when you have to correct someone 'well, actually, I am not an 'architect' per se, but rather a, uh, person doing architecture'.
yes its really sad that people give so much importance to titles, but then i can understanding the mentality of people slogging it out for the IDP etc etc while others who do not call themselves architect.
if someone asks me what i do, i just say 'architecture'. 'I went to architecture school and graduated from blah blah blah'.
This issue has always pissed me off. In my country New Zealand and in Australia, there is a move to remove the legal protection of the term "architect", but still protect "registered architect".
Of course in doing this you will have hoards of draughtsman changing their professional status to architect, but it will also mean that people like us will be able to finally call themselves architects.
Hopefully, there will be a strengthening and/or creation of architect organisations and associations, such as the NZIA due to actual architects [only those with a b.arch] and practices seeking to market and distinguish themselves from the aforementioned draughtsman, systems analysts and interior designers...
Hopefully increased memberships, and a strong leadership will allow the architecture community, here at least, to educate the public through advertising, public events, exhibitions etc.
I am in favour of this move.
diabase the interesting fact is that hordes of draughtsmen etc still call themselves architects all over the world without a trace of guilt, so the move you are talking about wont affect their lives-they will call themselves architects whatever come.
but it will surely be helpful to people like us who believe that and architect can call him/herself an architect without having to conform to a crappy institution like the NCARB or AIA.
I really don’t think this is an issue. An architect is just someone that makes use of his or her creativity and intelligence in a constructive way. Whether not you create buildings or computer programs is irrelevant. Having a license that gives you a title doesn’t make you anymore competent.
In NZ, you can get dispensation to call yourself an Architectural Designer, so many draughting practices do this.
I refer to myself as an architect, despite a lack of registration, primarily to avoid confusion. I just look forward to calling my business "abc architects" or whatever, without being thumped.
d
to the following archinecters-
ericarch-if you are not in fact a card carrying architect change your screen name immediately
le bossman- if you are in fact not french nor a bossman change your screen name immediately
evilplatypus- even if you are evil and lay eggs please change your screen name immediately
strawbeary- you can keep your name.
That's a good one, retro!
I am, in fact a card carrying architect, thank you :)
you're golden!!
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.