same reason i've been on the box about the "Architect of the Capitol". it's not just an aia issue, folks. it has effect on all of you educated in architecture that can't use the word.
by the way, i got a letter from my senator after having written him about the Architect of the Capitol not-quite-controversy-'cuz-nobody's-outraged-enough. mostly b.s.
and much more commonly used and i am so surprised they are allowed to use it - is in IT jobs.
often you see Information Architect, or Systems Architect.
I dont mind the term information architect; its a good description of the position and an interesting field in itself.
Calling a general an architect makes less sense (isnt it their job to plan these things, surely they are just being a general?). And of course the shaver and eye makeup is just silly
constant battle w/ a friend who introduces himself as an "Architect," failing to mention he's an "Information Architect." So if everyone can be an "Architect" except those of us not licensed but professionally trained in architecture, what the hells the point of trying to protect the title, it's b*s and riles my blood
I think we should start calling ourselves something different. Even though I cant legally call myself an architect, I can call myself an Archinecteour...until Archinect Paul sues my ass
As a profession, we have no particular or proprietary claim over the use of this word. A broad definition has entered common useage over time -- see underlined portions of the two defininitions shown below.
ar·chi·tect [ahr-ki-tekt] –noun
1. a person who engages in the profession of architecture.
2. a person professionally engaged in the design of certain large constructions other than buildings and the like: landscape architect; naval architect.
3. the deviser, maker, or creator of anything: the architects of the Constitution of the United States.
ar·chi·tect Pronunciation: 'är-k&-"tekt
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French architecte, from Latin architectus, from Greek architektOn master builder, from archi- + tektOn builder, carpenter -- more at TECHNICAL
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>
nothing anyone can do about the usage of the word.
The absurdity is folks in this profession getting sued for calling themselves an "architect", but not being licensed.
to me, that shows weakness in the lisencure process (and, ultimately, this profession) - can't go after the rest of the world calling themselves architects, so go after the little guy who's worked their ass off to enter this profession and do something they love.
yep, trace. agree 100%. but, because of the gatekeepers - and their love of their gates - i won't be surprised if we're talking about this exact issue 20yrs from now.
what do you see as the difference, babs? before i was registered, i wasn't allowed to declare myself architect any more than i was able to declare myself Architect.
A big-A architect has been ordained by a state jurisdiction as having demonstrated the necessary education, experience and qualifications to provide professional architectural services meeting the standards established by that jurisdiction to protect the health, safety and welfare of building occupants.
Participants in our industry not having met that standard are not permitted to use that title (big-A or otherwise) to avoid creating confusion in the minds of the consuming public. To me, this is a valid and useful distinction, whatever else our younger breathren may think.
There are mechanisms in place to prevent, or correct, the inappropriate use of this term within our industry. We have no control whatsoever over the use of this word outside our industry.
rodgert's post is good at poking holes in exactly the weird distinction that you're describing, babs. it sounds good on the surface, until you start to examine it harder. my wife can call herself an architect of ___, having had no architectural training, but the almost-there interns in my office cannot.
if this were just a semantic game, i wouldn't mind so much, but i've seen state boards take punitive action against experienced and trained - um - building designers for calling themselves architects - or allowing others to call them architects - prematurely.
seems like this is a phenomenon peculiar to the u.s. i wish ncarb and the state boards would figure out what other countries are doing right in order to avoid this controversy.
there should be more impt things to worry about/talk about.
maybe you're onto something, 765. maybe we're all just starchitects - just more known and lesser known starchitects! no one is regulating use of that term, as far as i can tell.
Steven -- I really respect your response above to babs. But, I continue to feel that this issue is way outside our control.
Here in our state, the use of the word is fixed by legislative fiat. Our profession has tried repeatedly to get the attention of the governor and the legislature in an attempt to refine and clarify the terminology. They simply don't care and, in every case, tie their refusal back to the "public safety" issue. It gives them something to regulate and use to raise money - very little of which returns to the profession in the form of enforcement. From what I observe, I suspect this same scenario plays out in many, if not all, of the other states.
I see little point abusing each other here on archinect, debating a matter over which we have little, if any, influence. Within the profession, it's wrapped up in politics, which we generally abhor. Outside the profession, it is what it is.
Let's talk about making better buildings and running better businesses, instead of obsessing over semantics that have no material impact (that I can see) on what we actually do.
Last year there was that case where a rep running for office (in CO) called himself an Architect (with a big A) during his campaign. The AIA sued him, they lost because he was not practicing. He then turned around and sued the AIA!!
Woohoo for American litigation!!
That's the first and only time I've heard about that and I think it'll be a precedent for much to come. Eventually, the AIA members will not want to pay the AIA to pursue these costly battles or will force them to come up with a reasonable solution.
Money talks. Once there is pressure for them to stop the ridiculous legal battles they'll stop and then maybe they can get back to important issues like educating the public about quality architecture and increasing the overall pay.
Maybe I am dreaming, but it seems like good business sense to me.
Thanks, Steven - I did a brief google on that exact question last night, as I did not think the AIA had sued him, either.
It was the state licensing board that issued the cease and desist on him, as would be the case any time someone misrepresents themselves as an architect.
No disrespect, trace, you know (I hope) how much I and others respect your commentary here.
when i was in undergrad i made small company with two friends.
a local architect got the provicincial licencing board to send us a letter from a lawyer telling us to change our business cards and so on cuz we said we did architectural presentations on them. this was in day when computers were not on every desk or in every office. so we offered our freelance ability to make 3d models, as well as trad watercolor renders and model making...
we didn't offer other kinds of presentation...only architectural...so was accurate description...but he was still pissed at our language, and since we were all barely out of our teens was scary enough that we changed our cards...
i can't think of anything worth less of an architects time than such nasty sniping and remain to this day deeply unimpressed by people like that.
Still, I look at it as one big bureaurocratic mess, in which the AIA are a substantial part. Could be just my own personal feelings towards the licensure process in general, I suppose,
Yes it is one big bureaucratic mess. Just to state my own attitude again, lest I come across as some hardass bureaucrat myself:
Who I think should be able to call themselves architect:
-registered architects
-degreed interns in the field not working solo
-anyone who went to arch school and is using it socially to answer the question "So what line of work are you in?" (which was more or less the case with the Colorado politico above)
Who I think should not be able to call themselves architect:
-unlicensed builders
-unlicensed developers
-unlicensed interior designers
-unlicensed designers of any type who are self-employed in the field (this includes my partner, who has a BArch)
-Nicky Hilton, Lenny Kravitz, et al including Brad Pitt though I'll make an exception for him if he'll do me a special favor
the aia has been fighting with ncarb about this for years, largely because of the strong expressions of dissatisfaction among the aias and associate aia members within the aia organization. aia leadership is practically in a feud with the leadership of ncarb over the entrenched thinking at ncarb.
i was reading the California Architecture Board newsletter today. Apparently you cant even use the words 'architectural services' or 'architectural design' without them fining you
California Architecture Board newsletter is the funniest of them all. specially the citation pages...
ie;
bla bla, an unlicensed individual, passed himself as an architect and illegally completed the higheest building in orange county. he was fined 100 dollars and paid the penalty.
any iowans on here these days? not only is he calling himself 'the architect', he's collecting money for it. that's certainly got to be a state board offence!
I am no architect I an a designer. Gardin Kunstner producing Gardin Kunst, even Rullegardin Kunst . I am also Plankeværks Kolorist, soon I will be experimenting and develobing a new Kunst trend ; Flyttekasse Kunst
--- Just say it fast and with a danish accent or check ;
Oh please oh please oh please somebody who is registered in Iowa alert the Iowa Professional Licensing Bureau!!!! It would be good for a laugh, if nothing else.
Feb 8, 08 9:07 pm ·
·
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.
'Architect" - Whose name is it anyway?
It's bad enough when they keep calling Karl Rove "the architect of Bush's success" or Gen. Petreus as the "architect of the Iraqi surge", ... etc.
but, now, we have this: http://www.arcitec.philips.com/gb/en/
(not that they seem to be able to spell very well - much like most of the posts on this site)
i thought this title was protected by the AIA, RIBA, RAIA, ....?
their spelling seems like a slang term of some loser hipster
this train has left the station - we've been "kleenexed" - get over it - move on
just try to be a good one - it won't matter much
oh lawd.... (hangs head in shame)
You know, if our name is so popular and respected in popular discourse, why aren't we paid more?
i like this one. L'Oreal mascara called Lash Architect.
same reason i've been on the box about the "Architect of the Capitol". it's not just an aia issue, folks. it has effect on all of you educated in architecture that can't use the word.
by the way, i got a letter from my senator after having written him about the Architect of the Capitol not-quite-controversy-'cuz-nobody's-outraged-enough. mostly b.s.
and much more commonly used and i am so surprised they are allowed to use it - is in IT jobs.
often you see Information Architect, or Systems Architect.
I dont mind the term information architect; its a good description of the position and an interesting field in itself.
Calling a general an architect makes less sense (isnt it their job to plan these things, surely they are just being a general?). And of course the shaver and eye makeup is just silly
I've seen terrorists and a CEO of a fast food chain referred to as "architects" in the media.
i'm going to name one of my children "Architect" just so the aia can sue him...or me...or both of us
constant battle w/ a friend who introduces himself as an "Architect," failing to mention he's an "Information Architect." So if everyone can be an "Architect" except those of us not licensed but professionally trained in architecture, what the hells the point of trying to protect the title, it's b*s and riles my blood
all those people use to be engineers...now they're architects...tomorrow they'll be artists
I think we should start calling ourselves something different. Even though I cant legally call myself an architect, I can call myself an Archinecteour...until Archinect Paul sues my ass
i introduce myself as a marine biologist.
I'm on my way to go get some of that mascara!!!
I've tried that mascara - it's alright, nothing to run out and buy!
As a profession, we have no particular or proprietary claim over the use of this word. A broad definition has entered common useage over time -- see underlined portions of the two defininitions shown below.
ar·chi·tect [ahr-ki-tekt] –noun
1. a person who engages in the profession of architecture.
2. a person professionally engaged in the design of certain large constructions other than buildings and the like: landscape architect; naval architect.
3. the deviser, maker, or creator of anything: the architects of the Constitution of the United States.
ar·chi·tect Pronunciation: 'är-k&-"tekt
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French architecte, from Latin architectus, from Greek architektOn master builder, from archi- + tektOn builder, carpenter -- more at TECHNICAL
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>
At least we get top billing.
I agree with babs -- let's move on.
nothing anyone can do about the usage of the word.
The absurdity is folks in this profession getting sued for calling themselves an "architect", but not being licensed.
to me, that shows weakness in the lisencure process (and, ultimately, this profession) - can't go after the rest of the world calling themselves architects, so go after the little guy who's worked their ass off to enter this profession and do something they love.
yep, trace. agree 100%. but, because of the gatekeepers - and their love of their gates - i won't be surprised if we're talking about this exact issue 20yrs from now.
while I respect the views expressed in the previous two posts, there's a big difference between an Architect and an architect.
let's focus on the big A.
what do you see as the difference, babs? before i was registered, i wasn't allowed to declare myself architect any more than i was able to declare myself Architect.
have a read of this: http://www.archsoc.com/kcas/Namearchitect.html
A big-A architect has been ordained by a state jurisdiction as having demonstrated the necessary education, experience and qualifications to provide professional architectural services meeting the standards established by that jurisdiction to protect the health, safety and welfare of building occupants.
Participants in our industry not having met that standard are not permitted to use that title (big-A or otherwise) to avoid creating confusion in the minds of the consuming public. To me, this is a valid and useful distinction, whatever else our younger breathren may think.
There are mechanisms in place to prevent, or correct, the inappropriate use of this term within our industry. We have no control whatsoever over the use of this word outside our industry.
And the debate goes on ....
rodgert's post is good at poking holes in exactly the weird distinction that you're describing, babs. it sounds good on the surface, until you start to examine it harder. my wife can call herself an architect of ___, having had no architectural training, but the almost-there interns in my office cannot.
if this were just a semantic game, i wouldn't mind so much, but i've seen state boards take punitive action against experienced and trained - um - building designers for calling themselves architects - or allowing others to call them architects - prematurely.
seems like this is a phenomenon peculiar to the u.s. i wish ncarb and the state boards would figure out what other countries are doing right in order to avoid this controversy.
there should be more impt things to worry about/talk about.
like why george bush thinks mandela is dead...
What about unlicensed Starchitects?
maybe you're onto something, 765. maybe we're all just starchitects - just more known and lesser known starchitects! no one is regulating use of that term, as far as i can tell.
baby i'm a star!
well i ain't a doctor but i've been referred to as doctor feelgood...
I am the architect of my own destiny...
Dang, I hope I won't get sued calling myself "architectress"!!!
*goes to print new business cards*
Steven -- I really respect your response above to babs. But, I continue to feel that this issue is way outside our control.
Here in our state, the use of the word is fixed by legislative fiat. Our profession has tried repeatedly to get the attention of the governor and the legislature in an attempt to refine and clarify the terminology. They simply don't care and, in every case, tie their refusal back to the "public safety" issue. It gives them something to regulate and use to raise money - very little of which returns to the profession in the form of enforcement. From what I observe, I suspect this same scenario plays out in many, if not all, of the other states.
I see little point abusing each other here on archinect, debating a matter over which we have little, if any, influence. Within the profession, it's wrapped up in politics, which we generally abhor. Outside the profession, it is what it is.
Let's talk about making better buildings and running better businesses, instead of obsessing over semantics that have no material impact (that I can see) on what we actually do.
is there any regulation on calling myself an 'urban designer'?
and more importantly, would deminish my sex appeal when introducing myself at parties?
Alot of professions could probably say the same thing, software engineer, food service engineer, rug doctor (ha ha), and so on and so on.
I think there is progress.
Last year there was that case where a rep running for office (in CO) called himself an Architect (with a big A) during his campaign. The AIA sued him, they lost because he was not practicing. He then turned around and sued the AIA!!
Woohoo for American litigation!!
That's the first and only time I've heard about that and I think it'll be a precedent for much to come. Eventually, the AIA members will not want to pay the AIA to pursue these costly battles or will force them to come up with a reasonable solution.
Money talks. Once there is pressure for them to stop the ridiculous legal battles they'll stop and then maybe they can get back to important issues like educating the public about quality architecture and increasing the overall pay.
Maybe I am dreaming, but it seems like good business sense to me.
did the aia sue hiim, or was it his state board, trace?
pdf of court doc: http://archrecord.construction.com/archrecord2/work/0611/d0093784.pdf
no wonder the kids are growing up hating the aia...the aia often gets blamed for things with which is has nothing to do.
aia members didn't pay for any of this, coloradans state taxes did.
Thanks, Steven - I did a brief google on that exact question last night, as I did not think the AIA had sued him, either.
It was the state licensing board that issued the cease and desist on him, as would be the case any time someone misrepresents themselves as an architect.
No disrespect, trace, you know (I hope) how much I and others respect your commentary here.
i think i mentioned once before...
when i was in undergrad i made small company with two friends.
a local architect got the provicincial licencing board to send us a letter from a lawyer telling us to change our business cards and so on cuz we said we did architectural presentations on them. this was in day when computers were not on every desk or in every office. so we offered our freelance ability to make 3d models, as well as trad watercolor renders and model making...
we didn't offer other kinds of presentation...only architectural...so was accurate description...but he was still pissed at our language, and since we were all barely out of our teens was scary enough that we changed our cards...
i can't think of anything worth less of an architects time than such nasty sniping and remain to this day deeply unimpressed by people like that.
makes me worry for the profession really.
I stand corrected.
Still, I look at it as one big bureaurocratic mess, in which the AIA are a substantial part. Could be just my own personal feelings towards the licensure process in general, I suppose,
I thought you were licensed already, trace?
Yes it is one big bureaucratic mess. Just to state my own attitude again, lest I come across as some hardass bureaucrat myself:
Who I think should be able to call themselves architect:
-registered architects
-degreed interns in the field not working solo
-anyone who went to arch school and is using it socially to answer the question "So what line of work are you in?" (which was more or less the case with the Colorado politico above)
Who I think should not be able to call themselves architect:
-unlicensed builders
-unlicensed developers
-unlicensed interior designers
-unlicensed designers of any type who are self-employed in the field (this includes my partner, who has a BArch)
-Nicky Hilton, Lenny Kravitz, et al including Brad Pitt though I'll make an exception for him if he'll do me a special favor
the aia has been fighting with ncarb about this for years, largely because of the strong expressions of dissatisfaction among the aias and associate aia members within the aia organization. aia leadership is practically in a feud with the leadership of ncarb over the entrenched thinking at ncarb.
the aia is our friend on this one.
i was reading the California Architecture Board newsletter today. Apparently you cant even use the words 'architectural services' or 'architectural design' without them fining you
fuck em all
California Architecture Board newsletter is the funniest of them all. specially the citation pages...
ie;
bla bla, an unlicensed individual, passed himself as an architect and illegally completed the higheest building in orange county. he was fined 100 dollars and paid the penalty.
apparently no architects in iowa give a sh*t
Oy vey.
any iowans on here these days? not only is he calling himself 'the architect', he's collecting money for it. that's certainly got to be a state board offence!
I am no architect I an a designer. Gardin Kunstner producing Gardin Kunst, even Rullegardin Kunst . I am also Plankeværks Kolorist, soon I will be experimenting and develobing a new Kunst trend ; Flyttekasse Kunst
--- Just say it fast and with a danish accent or check ;
www.ArtWanted.com/PC
Then you know I am a designer not an architect,
Oh please oh please oh please somebody who is registered in Iowa alert the Iowa Professional Licensing Bureau!!!! It would be good for a laugh, if nothing else.
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.