What are the differences these days between Architects, Interior Architects, and Interior Designers? The responsibilities in each profession overlaps one another (interior designer at architect offices and vice versa) that besides the obvious, what ARE the differences?
There is no inherent difference. Each individual has experiences that may be more or less enlightening that affect their ability to analyze, ideate, and build. Therefore, I think unlicensed IDs have the upper hand -- much less wheel spinning in school and much more making thread for textiles ;)
The overlap is geometry. The underlap is fabric: techtonic vs. textile.
i work at a big corporate firm in new york. my boss said one of the most disaffected/jaded things i've ever heard anybody involved in design say about architecture. it went something like this:
[during a discussion regarding an interior detailing issue]
"man, i tell you, interior design is seriously so much tougher than designing buildings. a building is just columns, slabs and a skin."
i just felt sorry for the guy... and much worse about corporate studio environments than ever before. i'm sure you guys see my point... there are so many amazing buildings getting done in the world, and this guy thinks that the interior work that this firm does (not very crazy or difficult by any measure) is tougher to design. sigh.
anyhow, to weigh in on this, i agree with virtual-architect in that they can all be attacked with equal amounts of intelligence and excitement and can all produce stunning products. there is obviously an issue of scale, and, with this, an architect has a larger role to play in the development of the public realm and how it is perceived. but on the flip-side of the scale issue, interior architects (like the guy mentioned above) get to resolve things to an awesome degree of detail.
it's all design... as far as roles go, i think anybody that is legally able to call themself 'architect' (ie, registered) ends up getting more responsibility and more cash money, at least at a big corporate firm. though i think that some states have tests now for becoming a registered 'interior designer'... anybody know about how this works?
woah.. can't believe i'm hearing this
what the hell is an "interior architect"? is there some thing i missed somewhere? is there an IARE or an AIIA? I dont' mean to start an argument on whos better etc.. but an interior designer and and architect are vastly different things. Sure some times architects overlap and specialize in interiors and you often find id's working in arch offices.. even doing arch. drafting.. but there are tremendous differentces. It's a question of scope plain and simple.. the Architects scope of work encompases every aspect of a building where interior designers only deal with just that ....interiors. As of late architects have been giving more of their scope away to construction managersand other consultants.. but there are still a good many that don't and that is where the fundamental difference.. Sure a lot of architects only use their structural knowledge to get thier licenses but it's on the test for a reason.. Engineering consultant it falls on the archtect to make sure the building is sound both aeshetically as well as sturctually and mechanically.. id's don't get sued if the lighting is a little garrish or the curtain fabric fades.. but its the architect's responsibility if the mechanical system is too loud or the foundation settles..
Interior Designers go to school for less time, don't have as much stress, and make more money. Also, they are much more likely to have repeat customers, as there is always an interior to redo.
I'd take a box/loft with a great interior over a half decent design with a bad interior. It's just easier to spend money on something that you will actually feel.
Woah...Gabriel, down boy down...Response is appreciated, but no hostility is needed...
I ask this question b/c I am in a position where I'm at a cross road but before making any decisions all pros/ cons must be taken into consideration...
Please feel free (w/ the exception of Gabriel :) to add or adjust my thinking.
Architect - Respected profession, technical, far too much time spent w/ city officials...
Interior Architects - ???
Interior Designers - Disrespected profession, creative, far too much time spent w/ clients...
Interior Decorators - House wives w/ too much time on their hands
Architect: respected and Interior Designer: Disrespected?
Get over yourself.
Who is the judge of that? You? Someone mentioned earlier about a dentist and dental hygenist. Both perform valuable roles for your oral maintanence and as such the scope of each's work should be given equal respect. The same goes for architects and interior designers/decorators. Each profession contributes to the making of space albeit in varying ways, therefore one should judge and deal out respect to each by the outcome of what they produce not the profession they chose.
first: i believe that the term 'interior architect' refers to a registered architect that choses to work exclusively with interiors. i would not really think/know this except for my experience this summer at this big corporate firm; many of the architects work on just interior stuff.
second: cad monkey vs. drafter = same thing vs. same thing
third: i am with those calling for respect of all three categories. in a way it's like yelling about whether the composer, conductor or musician is the most important element in executing a sucessful symphony. i think architects just like to think of themselves as all three and often lack respect for those who choose to focus on one.
huh? it is the same thing... a cad monkey drafts, so he is a drafter... how is that disrespectful? using the word monkey to refer to a person? i have no idea what you're talking about. i suppose a drafter doesn't have to be a cad monkey if he drafts by hand, but they're still equivalent.
i don't want to sound like an asshole, but it's just funny when people begin a post with "you guys need to become better educated" and then proceed to write a completely incorrect post. so allow me to educate you.
this post was begun in order to discuss the differences between architects, interior architects and interior designers. as i pointed out in response to a poster's confusion over the term, i believe an interior architect is a registered *architect* that chooses to work exclusively on interiors.
an interior *designer* is not an interior *architect*. you proved this yourself by posting a link to the National Council for Interior Design Qualification. if you noticed earlier, i had inquired as to how the certification/registration of interior *designers* works. thanks for answering (albeit in an oddly misinformed way).
i agree that there is certainly a difference between the professions of interior decorator and interior designer. but there is just as much difference between interior designer and interior architect. schools that call courses 'interior architecture' actually teach the things that the NCIDQ defines as 'interior design.'
according to the site, interior decorators:
"collaborate with licensed practitioners who offer professional services in the technical areas of mechanical, electrical, and load-bearing design as required for regulatory approval."
nowhere on the site does it say that interior designers are legally liable for their designs. that's because, while they do "Review and approve shop drawings and samples to assure they are consistent with design concepts," as the NCIDQ says, they do not "sign off on CD's," as you say.
To all of you who's participated in this discussion:
I've done my share of reseach and below are the findings...
Architecture - you all know
Interior Architecture - according to 3 university resources that offer the program, to call oneself an interior architect, a license in architecture is NOT needed, however a FIDER accredited education w/ a licensure in Interior Design (aka NCIDQ) is needed
Interior Design - has become a title for interior decorators
As the token interiors student, I feel like I should put my two cents in here.
Sorry Joed, Cerca and M_Yagi are pretty well-informed about the field. Interior Architect is the new title for the licensed Interior Designer who wants to make the difference between designer and decorator clear. I'm not belittling decorating. It's one part of what I do. But there is the matter of liability that designers need to deal with that decorators do not. Yes, designers can be sued. If I design a tray ceiling that crushes a family of four, who do you think is responsible? If I detail a wet column to cantilever a bathtub off of and it floods the space, again, who is responsible? My final projects usually end up with 2 inch stacks of CD's to support my design. What do you think I'm drawing? Sections of throw pillows? Curtain rods, maybe?
Also, licensing is a state to state thing. NCIDQ is not your licensing exam. It only qualifies you to sit for the state exam. And this is a growing field still trying to find it's boundaries. It used to be a 2 year program, and now it's a 4 year degree. They are purposely making it more difficult to become a designer/architect. Schools are being flooded by 18 year olds who watch trading spaces and they are trying to regain some quality control.
Architect is no longer a word solely owned by those who design free standing structures and buildings. How many Web-Architect job listings have you seen on monster.com lately?
I would also question the equivelence we're applying to 'designer' and 'architect'. Yes, architects are designers, as are interior designers...but the practice of architecture is not just an excercise in design. For decades, architectural historians have been establishing and reestablishing architecture as an autonomous discipline, apart from other design disciplines. A definative answer can be elusive, but some have suggested that architecture has a unique relationship to the drawing--the drawing as a means to explore, provoke, and analyze spatialized orders (this also carries over to the many other medias that are used by architects). The drawing is what keeps the architect from aestheticizing the design as decorative surface. In other words, drawing is not simply a tool for representing order, but an agent in the establishment and analysis of potential orders.
So, in my opinion, both interior architects and architects participate in architecture. Decorators deal with wallpaper.
Wait a minute. Are you telling me that a registered interior designer can now call her/himself interior architect? What happened to all that ruling that says only a registered architect can call her/himself architect???
I don’t want to be nasty about this. But like joed, I don't buy that an "Interior Architect" is anything other than an NCARB-licensed architect who focuses on interiors rather than whole buildings.
I am a registered architect and I guard the word “architect” and the professional status that it implies very jealously.
Where in the NCIDQ or NCARB or AIA or anyone else’s professional organization’s rules is it clearly stated that someone who is not a traditionally licensed and registered (NCARB) professional can call themselves “architect”? If someone with less schooling, testing, liability, and scrutiny than I have can also legally call themselves “architect”, then I’m leaving this thread to go write an angry letter to NCARB asking them why this was allowed.
I’m talking about built environment design professionals here, not “web architects”. With all due respect to the importance of “design” in web design, and while I think there are myriad and fascinating similarities between the successful design of information architecture and physical architecture, an NCARB professional worrying about confusion with a web architect is like an MD worrying about confusion with The Plant Doctor. They both heal sick living things, but let’s be serious.
so, interior architect is the new title for the licensed interior designer, you say? why is it that the website of the official licensing body of interior designers (ncidq.org) never mentions this title? i'm not sure what the legal issues involved here are, but it seems shady and more than a little misleading that members of one profession (seemingly without authorization from its licensing body) can simply choose to co-opt the title of another profession simply because they feel they are being unjustly undervalued.
i think from here on out all graduate students of architecture (the non-interior-only kind) should call themselves architect/engineers, because hey, we've taken a couple of structures classes.
In terms of the profession, yes, only architects are fit to be called 'architects'. I was simply trying to broaden the dialogue beyond issues of professional status and qualification, to speak more generally about the practice of architecture...but forget about it.
Maybe I'm oversimplifying this, Liberty Bell. But, I think you're saying that an interior architect can only be a person who completes their five year BArch and then chooses to do what I can do with my 4 year BFA + internship and license?
If we are doing the same job, and the same issues of liability come up... then why shouldn't I call myself an Interior Architect? Are you really that bitter about the extra year you spend in school?
You are still the Architect. No prefix, no suffix. Yours is the profession that inspired mine. We work towards a common goal. What is with the attitude?
the issue is one of liability and responsibility. interior designers, registered or not, cannot submit any structural changes to a building. i.e. they can add a wall but they cannot modify a wall that is acting in a structural function. to do so would require an architect's stamp. that stamp is our most valuable asset, and is the only guarantor of safety in the construction industry. i dont mean to tear down interior designers, as they perform a necessary role in the building process. but i do wish to point out the responsibility that we as architects take on (which is a heavy responsibility, considering the amount of litigation) and that is our distinction. also, the title of architect is a legally protected title. you can be sued for fraud or be open to criminal prosecution by impersonating a registered architect (as you could be for impersonating a doctor, another protected title.) of course, this does not prohibit anyone from calling themselves an interior architect, just as their is no penalty for calling yourself the "love" doctor.
Thanks for explaining, jmac, and sorry to jump on you. I took your post as a slam, and I’m more than a little riled up about this topic.
As I said: I agree with your idealism regarding what constitutes an architect. Certainly there are crappy licensed professionals out there who can legally call themselves “architect” because, well, that’s what they are. It doesn’t make me happy that hacks reap the same benefits of registration that I do, and in fact, are probably making 3x the money I make. But at least they’ve paid their dues, so to speak, in terms of getting registered.
Which raises the question, design geek-girl, what exactly IS your internship and license? Did you take the Architects Registration Exam, or not? If you did, then you’re an architect. If you didn’t, you’re not. That’s my understanding of the professional registration laws of the US.
I’ll repeat my question: what professional organization includes in their licensing and registration bylaws – sanctioned by the state – the right to legally use the term “architect” besides the traditional ARE-NCARB registration? If it’s legally out there, then there’s no need for all the fuss.
And I’ll turn the bitterness question back to you, dgg - if the use of the word architect ISN’T that big a deal, then why are you so all-fired to use it, why aren’t you satisfied to be called an interior designer?
No one gets mad when someone is referred to as the "architect of that war" or the "architect of this program." The term is used everywhere, and I don't see why interior designers shouldn't be able to use it, too. It seems like some of you are confusing "Architect" with "Licensed Architect." These interiors guys aren't gonna lie and pretend they're NCARB licensed. They just want people to know that they're more than just decorators.
It is not a matter of where it is stated that I can... Where is it stated that I can't? Prefacing Architect with the word Interior makes all the difference.
The funny thing is that I couldn't give a crap either way what my title is... to be completely honest, I'd prefer something along the lines of Goddess of the Design Realm. It's just the "how dare you sully my good name" attitude that makes me want to tattoo INTERIOR ARCHITECT on my forehead.
And sorry, but, unless you've got the word ARCHITECT under copyright, you can't stop me. The title change is a movement that is under way in the field. Take a deep breath, accept it, and try not to let it ruin your day. Life is too short to get so upset about a group of people changing their title, especially when you're convinced of your superiority to said people.
nice... so the way i see it is interior designers have decied that they don't want to be confused with lowly interior decorators etc.. so they have decied to co-opt the title of architect to their name.... if the title is that important just jump through the hoops and take the ARE. If the ID registration process is as rigerous as the Architectural then i see no reason why the title Interior Designer souldn't carry just as mush prestiege. If you have to glom Architect onto your title to gain legitimacy then maybe some re-evaluation is in order.
the problem is that the two professions we've been discussing here overlap enough in certain ways for there to be public confusion as to whose role is what in the making of a building.
for an interior designer to use the title architect is misleading, intentional misappropriation. your dissatisfaction with connotations that your profession's title evokes does not entitle you to the use of another, entirely distinct profession's title.
how about you go out, do good work, and make the title 'interior designer' as respected as you seem to think that the fallacy 'interior architect' is. who knows, maybe an architect will one day aspire to the official title "building designer."
it is irrelevent if a software engineer feels entitled to the epithet "information architect" because it seems valid according to what webster's says. the title of architect did not come to be so coveted by people looking up its definition in a dictionary. it became so through the insane amount of work an architect has to do to gain the title (in my case, 4 years undergrad, 3 years grad, 3 years internship, then registration exam), and the quality and depth of work that is a result of this extensive education. the built world (excluding crap done by hack developers) as we know it was designed by architects (and urban planners, who are perfectly proud of the title they bear).
i am not megalomaniacal, i am just proud of my profession, of its history, present, and the prospects of its future. be proud of your own profession, earn the respect that you feel it deserves. but do it with your own name, not ours.
But anatomical gift, are you a “lawyer” or are you an “anatomical lawyer”?
There are plenty of laws, design geek-girl, telling you that you can’t use the term “architect”. They vary by state. A good friend who is too busy being a very successful home designer to bother with registration was recently told to remove the term “architectural designer” from his letterhead, because his state considered even that term to be too close to an illegal use of the term “architect”.
If your state sanctions the use of the term “Interior Architect” along the same lines as the use of the term “Landscape Architect”, then fine, that’s a reasonable and legal use (but one about which I will angrily contact my state licensing board and AIA). But to go back to your earlier post, the prefix does make all the difference. And unless you say that you took the ARE, you can’t say that you’re also doing the same job as I am, because you can’t stamp the same drawings I can.
It’s not about being a superior designer, it’s about being a more rigorously qualified professional. As jmac implied, architecture is more than just a profession, but the ability to rightfully use the title is a reward for an extremely difficult course of study, internship, examination, and continuing education.
And you obviously DO care about being able to use the title “architect”. Your posts here are evidence of that desire.
To all of you who have something to say about this topic of discussion...
Let's drop the egos. It's not about that...The question was not intended to create divisions among the entities, but allow me to say this:
Both professions, Architects and Interior Designers are well deserving of respect for each of their talents in specific areas and for now, we'll put the "Interior Architects" to rest.
However, let me pose another question now.
To all those who call yourself an "Architect" and who are protective of their titles, do you practice interior design and call yourself an "Interior Designer" as well?
Because if there is truth to today's (August 4, 2004) guidelines of earning the title of "Interior Designer", techinically, "Architects" are not legitimately qualified in the profession.
yagi, just because you start a thread doesn't mean you can stop people from discussing the issues that come up. ego has nothing to do with it (okay, something, but only in the freudian sense). you can't call yourself something you're not without being a liar. so if interior designers are willing to compromise and call themselves "lying interior architects," i'd be fine with that i think.
architects wouldn't have to call themselves interior designers because they can do everything an interior designer can do while still using the title 'architect.' that's not to say that any architect can design a room better than any interior architect, but they can do it (legally and literally).
Not to be controversial, BUT...
What are the differences these days between Architects, Interior Architects, and Interior Designers? The responsibilities in each profession overlaps one another (interior designer at architect offices and vice versa) that besides the obvious, what ARE the differences?
There is no inherent difference. Each individual has experiences that may be more or less enlightening that affect their ability to analyze, ideate, and build. Therefore, I think unlicensed IDs have the upper hand -- much less wheel spinning in school and much more making thread for textiles ;)
The overlap is geometry. The underlap is fabric: techtonic vs. textile.
1) Architect
2) Interior Architect
3) Interior Designer
Each discipline should be, and typically is knowledgeable in each the field(s) below it, as shown above.
No offense virtual-Architect, but the overlap is one way.
Shame on you.
I don't know, but they all have a salary of around 32K.
Interior Designers can be sued far less than architects.
i work at a big corporate firm in new york. my boss said one of the most disaffected/jaded things i've ever heard anybody involved in design say about architecture. it went something like this:
[during a discussion regarding an interior detailing issue]
"man, i tell you, interior design is seriously so much tougher than designing buildings. a building is just columns, slabs and a skin."
i just felt sorry for the guy... and much worse about corporate studio environments than ever before. i'm sure you guys see my point... there are so many amazing buildings getting done in the world, and this guy thinks that the interior work that this firm does (not very crazy or difficult by any measure) is tougher to design. sigh.
anyhow, to weigh in on this, i agree with virtual-architect in that they can all be attacked with equal amounts of intelligence and excitement and can all produce stunning products. there is obviously an issue of scale, and, with this, an architect has a larger role to play in the development of the public realm and how it is perceived. but on the flip-side of the scale issue, interior architects (like the guy mentioned above) get to resolve things to an awesome degree of detail.
it's all design... as far as roles go, i think anybody that is legally able to call themself 'architect' (ie, registered) ends up getting more responsibility and more cash money, at least at a big corporate firm. though i think that some states have tests now for becoming a registered 'interior designer'... anybody know about how this works?
woah.. can't believe i'm hearing this
what the hell is an "interior architect"? is there some thing i missed somewhere? is there an IARE or an AIIA? I dont' mean to start an argument on whos better etc.. but an interior designer and and architect are vastly different things. Sure some times architects overlap and specialize in interiors and you often find id's working in arch offices.. even doing arch. drafting.. but there are tremendous differentces. It's a question of scope plain and simple.. the Architects scope of work encompases every aspect of a building where interior designers only deal with just that ....interiors. As of late architects have been giving more of their scope away to construction managersand other consultants.. but there are still a good many that don't and that is where the fundamental difference.. Sure a lot of architects only use their structural knowledge to get thier licenses but it's on the test for a reason.. Engineering consultant it falls on the archtect to make sure the building is sound both aeshetically as well as sturctually and mechanically.. id's don't get sued if the lighting is a little garrish or the curtain fabric fades.. but its the architect's responsibility if the mechanical system is too loud or the foundation settles..
Interior decorators is where the money is at...spec expensive stuff and take a % of the cost
I don't want a dental hygenist doing my root canals.
nice.. well put gift
Interior Designers go to school for less time, don't have as much stress, and make more money. Also, they are much more likely to have repeat customers, as there is always an interior to redo.
I'd take a box/loft with a great interior over a half decent design with a bad interior. It's just easier to spend money on something that you will actually feel.
That said, architecture is more fun. ;-)
don't forget interior decorator...do they even count?
"what ARE the differences?"
the answer is right in front of your nose....
the ARE is one MAJOR difference
Woah...Gabriel, down boy down...Response is appreciated, but no hostility is needed...
I ask this question b/c I am in a position where I'm at a cross road but before making any decisions all pros/ cons must be taken into consideration...
Please feel free (w/ the exception of Gabriel :) to add or adjust my thinking.
Architect - Respected profession, technical, far too much time spent w/ city officials...
Interior Architects - ???
Interior Designers - Disrespected profession, creative, far too much time spent w/ clients...
Interior Decorators - House wives w/ too much time on their hands
Architect: respected and Interior Designer: Disrespected?
Get over yourself.
Who is the judge of that? You? Someone mentioned earlier about a dentist and dental hygenist. Both perform valuable roles for your oral maintanence and as such the scope of each's work should be given equal respect. The same goes for architects and interior designers/decorators. Each profession contributes to the making of space albeit in varying ways, therefore one should judge and deal out respect to each by the outcome of what they produce not the profession they chose.
Since we are on this topic:
Cad monkey vs. Drafter.
The difference? Your imagination.
first: i believe that the term 'interior architect' refers to a registered architect that choses to work exclusively with interiors. i would not really think/know this except for my experience this summer at this big corporate firm; many of the architects work on just interior stuff.
second: cad monkey vs. drafter = same thing vs. same thing
third: i am with those calling for respect of all three categories. in a way it's like yelling about whether the composer, conductor or musician is the most important element in executing a sucessful symphony. i think architects just like to think of themselves as all three and often lack respect for those who choose to focus on one.
joed
You are calling for respect, yet you call a drafter a cad monkey? Hmm...
huh? it is the same thing... a cad monkey drafts, so he is a drafter... how is that disrespectful? using the word monkey to refer to a person? i have no idea what you're talking about. i suppose a drafter doesn't have to be a cad monkey if he drafts by hand, but they're still equivalent.
i don't want to sound like an asshole, but it's just funny when people begin a post with "you guys need to become better educated" and then proceed to write a completely incorrect post. so allow me to educate you.
this post was begun in order to discuss the differences between architects, interior architects and interior designers. as i pointed out in response to a poster's confusion over the term, i believe an interior architect is a registered *architect* that chooses to work exclusively on interiors.
an interior *designer* is not an interior *architect*. you proved this yourself by posting a link to the National Council for Interior Design Qualification. if you noticed earlier, i had inquired as to how the certification/registration of interior *designers* works. thanks for answering (albeit in an oddly misinformed way).
i agree that there is certainly a difference between the professions of interior decorator and interior designer. but there is just as much difference between interior designer and interior architect. schools that call courses 'interior architecture' actually teach the things that the NCIDQ defines as 'interior design.'
according to the site, interior decorators:
"collaborate with licensed practitioners who offer professional services in the technical areas of mechanical, electrical, and load-bearing design as required for regulatory approval."
nowhere on the site does it say that interior designers are legally liable for their designs. that's because, while they do "Review and approve shop drawings and samples to assure they are consistent with design concepts," as the NCIDQ says, they do not "sign off on CD's," as you say.
wanna know why?
because they're not architects.
correction:
"according to the site, interior decorators:"
should be:
"according to the site, interior designers:"
sorry bout that.
To all of you who's participated in this discussion:
I've done my share of reseach and below are the findings...
Architecture - you all know
Interior Architecture - according to 3 university resources that offer the program, to call oneself an interior architect, a license in architecture is NOT needed, however a FIDER accredited education w/ a licensure in Interior Design (aka NCIDQ) is needed
Interior Design - has become a title for interior decorators
Times are changing people!!!
As the token interiors student, I feel like I should put my two cents in here.
Sorry Joed, Cerca and M_Yagi are pretty well-informed about the field. Interior Architect is the new title for the licensed Interior Designer who wants to make the difference between designer and decorator clear. I'm not belittling decorating. It's one part of what I do. But there is the matter of liability that designers need to deal with that decorators do not. Yes, designers can be sued. If I design a tray ceiling that crushes a family of four, who do you think is responsible? If I detail a wet column to cantilever a bathtub off of and it floods the space, again, who is responsible? My final projects usually end up with 2 inch stacks of CD's to support my design. What do you think I'm drawing? Sections of throw pillows? Curtain rods, maybe?
Also, licensing is a state to state thing. NCIDQ is not your licensing exam. It only qualifies you to sit for the state exam. And this is a growing field still trying to find it's boundaries. It used to be a 2 year program, and now it's a 4 year degree. They are purposely making it more difficult to become a designer/architect. Schools are being flooded by 18 year olds who watch trading spaces and they are trying to regain some quality control.
Architect is no longer a word solely owned by those who design free standing structures and buildings. How many Web-Architect job listings have you seen on monster.com lately?
I actually overheard this conversation while I was visiting schools:
"So what made you think you want to become an architect?"
"Well, when I watch the O.C. I see all of the cool houses and think I should do that. I want to design all those cool houses."
That beats wanting to be like Mr. Brady
I would also question the equivelence we're applying to 'designer' and 'architect'. Yes, architects are designers, as are interior designers...but the practice of architecture is not just an excercise in design. For decades, architectural historians have been establishing and reestablishing architecture as an autonomous discipline, apart from other design disciplines. A definative answer can be elusive, but some have suggested that architecture has a unique relationship to the drawing--the drawing as a means to explore, provoke, and analyze spatialized orders (this also carries over to the many other medias that are used by architects). The drawing is what keeps the architect from aestheticizing the design as decorative surface. In other words, drawing is not simply a tool for representing order, but an agent in the establishment and analysis of potential orders.
So, in my opinion, both interior architects and architects participate in architecture. Decorators deal with wallpaper.
Wait a minute. Are you telling me that a registered interior designer can now call her/himself interior architect? What happened to all that ruling that says only a registered architect can call her/himself architect???
I don’t want to be nasty about this. But like joed, I don't buy that an "Interior Architect" is anything other than an NCARB-licensed architect who focuses on interiors rather than whole buildings.
I am a registered architect and I guard the word “architect” and the professional status that it implies very jealously.
Where in the NCIDQ or NCARB or AIA or anyone else’s professional organization’s rules is it clearly stated that someone who is not a traditionally licensed and registered (NCARB) professional can call themselves “architect”? If someone with less schooling, testing, liability, and scrutiny than I have can also legally call themselves “architect”, then I’m leaving this thread to go write an angry letter to NCARB asking them why this was allowed.
I’m talking about built environment design professionals here, not “web architects”. With all due respect to the importance of “design” in web design, and while I think there are myriad and fascinating similarities between the successful design of information architecture and physical architecture, an NCARB professional worrying about confusion with a web architect is like an MD worrying about confusion with The Plant Doctor. They both heal sick living things, but let’s be serious.
I would rather be thought of an architect because I practice architecture, not because of a title officially sanctioned by the state.
so, interior architect is the new title for the licensed interior designer, you say? why is it that the website of the official licensing body of interior designers (ncidq.org) never mentions this title? i'm not sure what the legal issues involved here are, but it seems shady and more than a little misleading that members of one profession (seemingly without authorization from its licensing body) can simply choose to co-opt the title of another profession simply because they feel they are being unjustly undervalued.
i think from here on out all graduate students of architecture (the non-interior-only kind) should call themselves architect/engineers, because hey, we've taken a couple of structures classes.
Yes, jmac, I agree with your idealism.
But I'm also registered.
Yes, joed, that's exactly what I'm wondering. Does NCARB sanction some other profession legally using the term "architect", and if so, why?
In terms of the profession, yes, only architects are fit to be called 'architects'. I was simply trying to broaden the dialogue beyond issues of professional status and qualification, to speak more generally about the practice of architecture...but forget about it.
Maybe I'm oversimplifying this, Liberty Bell. But, I think you're saying that an interior architect can only be a person who completes their five year BArch and then chooses to do what I can do with my 4 year BFA + internship and license?
If we are doing the same job, and the same issues of liability come up... then why shouldn't I call myself an Interior Architect? Are you really that bitter about the extra year you spend in school?
You are still the Architect. No prefix, no suffix. Yours is the profession that inspired mine. We work towards a common goal. What is with the attitude?
was waiting for you to pop in dgg...needed an interior architect to represent.
the issue is one of liability and responsibility. interior designers, registered or not, cannot submit any structural changes to a building. i.e. they can add a wall but they cannot modify a wall that is acting in a structural function. to do so would require an architect's stamp. that stamp is our most valuable asset, and is the only guarantor of safety in the construction industry. i dont mean to tear down interior designers, as they perform a necessary role in the building process. but i do wish to point out the responsibility that we as architects take on (which is a heavy responsibility, considering the amount of litigation) and that is our distinction. also, the title of architect is a legally protected title. you can be sued for fraud or be open to criminal prosecution by impersonating a registered architect (as you could be for impersonating a doctor, another protected title.) of course, this does not prohibit anyone from calling themselves an interior architect, just as their is no penalty for calling yourself the "love" doctor.
Thanks for explaining, jmac, and sorry to jump on you. I took your post as a slam, and I’m more than a little riled up about this topic.
As I said: I agree with your idealism regarding what constitutes an architect. Certainly there are crappy licensed professionals out there who can legally call themselves “architect” because, well, that’s what they are. It doesn’t make me happy that hacks reap the same benefits of registration that I do, and in fact, are probably making 3x the money I make. But at least they’ve paid their dues, so to speak, in terms of getting registered.
Which raises the question, design geek-girl, what exactly IS your internship and license? Did you take the Architects Registration Exam, or not? If you did, then you’re an architect. If you didn’t, you’re not. That’s my understanding of the professional registration laws of the US.
I’ll repeat my question: what professional organization includes in their licensing and registration bylaws – sanctioned by the state – the right to legally use the term “architect” besides the traditional ARE-NCARB registration? If it’s legally out there, then there’s no need for all the fuss.
And I’ll turn the bitterness question back to you, dgg - if the use of the word architect ISN’T that big a deal, then why are you so all-fired to use it, why aren’t you satisfied to be called an interior designer?
No one gets mad when someone is referred to as the "architect of that war" or the "architect of this program." The term is used everywhere, and I don't see why interior designers shouldn't be able to use it, too. It seems like some of you are confusing "Architect" with "Licensed Architect." These interiors guys aren't gonna lie and pretend they're NCARB licensed. They just want people to know that they're more than just decorators.
Actually, I can answer my own question. Landscape architects use the title "architect" without taking the ARE.
Thank you Beane.
It is not a matter of where it is stated that I can... Where is it stated that I can't? Prefacing Architect with the word Interior makes all the difference.
The funny thing is that I couldn't give a crap either way what my title is... to be completely honest, I'd prefer something along the lines of Goddess of the Design Realm. It's just the "how dare you sully my good name" attitude that makes me want to tattoo INTERIOR ARCHITECT on my forehead.
And sorry, but, unless you've got the word ARCHITECT under copyright, you can't stop me. The title change is a movement that is under way in the field. Take a deep breath, accept it, and try not to let it ruin your day. Life is too short to get so upset about a group of people changing their title, especially when you're convinced of your superiority to said people.
I'm a lawyer.
I object.
nice... so the way i see it is interior designers have decied that they don't want to be confused with lowly interior decorators etc.. so they have decied to co-opt the title of architect to their name.... if the title is that important just jump through the hoops and take the ARE. If the ID registration process is as rigerous as the Architectural then i see no reason why the title Interior Designer souldn't carry just as mush prestiege. If you have to glom Architect onto your title to gain legitimacy then maybe some re-evaluation is in order.
the problem is that the two professions we've been discussing here overlap enough in certain ways for there to be public confusion as to whose role is what in the making of a building.
for an interior designer to use the title architect is misleading, intentional misappropriation. your dissatisfaction with connotations that your profession's title evokes does not entitle you to the use of another, entirely distinct profession's title.
how about you go out, do good work, and make the title 'interior designer' as respected as you seem to think that the fallacy 'interior architect' is. who knows, maybe an architect will one day aspire to the official title "building designer."
it is irrelevent if a software engineer feels entitled to the epithet "information architect" because it seems valid according to what webster's says. the title of architect did not come to be so coveted by people looking up its definition in a dictionary. it became so through the insane amount of work an architect has to do to gain the title (in my case, 4 years undergrad, 3 years grad, 3 years internship, then registration exam), and the quality and depth of work that is a result of this extensive education. the built world (excluding crap done by hack developers) as we know it was designed by architects (and urban planners, who are perfectly proud of the title they bear).
i am not megalomaniacal, i am just proud of my profession, of its history, present, and the prospects of its future. be proud of your own profession, earn the respect that you feel it deserves. but do it with your own name, not ours.
But anatomical gift, are you a “lawyer” or are you an “anatomical lawyer”?
There are plenty of laws, design geek-girl, telling you that you can’t use the term “architect”. They vary by state. A good friend who is too busy being a very successful home designer to bother with registration was recently told to remove the term “architectural designer” from his letterhead, because his state considered even that term to be too close to an illegal use of the term “architect”.
If your state sanctions the use of the term “Interior Architect” along the same lines as the use of the term “Landscape Architect”, then fine, that’s a reasonable and legal use (but one about which I will angrily contact my state licensing board and AIA). But to go back to your earlier post, the prefix does make all the difference. And unless you say that you took the ARE, you can’t say that you’re also doing the same job as I am, because you can’t stamp the same drawings I can.
It’s not about being a superior designer, it’s about being a more rigorously qualified professional. As jmac implied, architecture is more than just a profession, but the ability to rightfully use the title is a reward for an extremely difficult course of study, internship, examination, and continuing education.
And you obviously DO care about being able to use the title “architect”. Your posts here are evidence of that desire.
To all of you who have something to say about this topic of discussion...
Let's drop the egos. It's not about that...The question was not intended to create divisions among the entities, but allow me to say this:
Both professions, Architects and Interior Designers are well deserving of respect for each of their talents in specific areas and for now, we'll put the "Interior Architects" to rest.
However, let me pose another question now.
To all those who call yourself an "Architect" and who are protective of their titles, do you practice interior design and call yourself an "Interior Designer" as well?
Because if there is truth to today's (August 4, 2004) guidelines of earning the title of "Interior Designer", techinically, "Architects" are not legitimately qualified in the profession.
Agree/ Disagree?
yagi, just because you start a thread doesn't mean you can stop people from discussing the issues that come up. ego has nothing to do with it (okay, something, but only in the freudian sense). you can't call yourself something you're not without being a liar. so if interior designers are willing to compromise and call themselves "lying interior architects," i'd be fine with that i think.
architects wouldn't have to call themselves interior designers because they can do everything an interior designer can do while still using the title 'architect.' that's not to say that any architect can design a room better than any interior architect, but they can do it (legally and literally).
I'm the president. I'm censuring you.
I respect interior designers and interior decorators.
me too.
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.