Nobody wants to be an architect, they want their face in a magazine.

same thing happens with "Engineer". Ever heard the phrase "engineer of his own demise"? apparently everyone self destructive is an aspiring engineer. I'm also watching the match this morning, great stuff.

isn't an architect everyone who has a 'project'? .. people plan their lives just like we plan buildings...

I agree Medit, engineer and architect are routinely used to describe building any sort of physical or metaphysical project. I'm just glad our professions elicit an inherently positive reaction from people. It has to be better than being described as lawyerly, which nobody likes.

people use the word 'architect' like they use dental floss. get over yourself.

architect is merely a word...people will use it in many different ways - some of those uses will be in ways you do not like to see or hear it used...deal with it.

what do you guys think about brad pitt and his "architectural career"?

Nonsense. As we all know, 'architect' is the most illustrious, sexy, 'can do', broad-minded job description on planet earth. Why else would we put up with the drudgery, long hours, miserable pay and being treated as eminently dispensable by everyone else on a building project and a public menace by everyone else?
Apologies. On a Sunday I look at the bigger picture and become a hopeless cynic :-)

As for Brad Pitt, our current version of democracy / intellectual insight runs that for technical jobs people are either expert or not involved. For aesthetics, everyone's opinion is equally valid. A brain surgeon uses her hands and we all have hands, right?

do you think real doctors are offended by dr. dre using the title? personally, i think they could care less and have better things to worry about.

that is interesting you assume anyone was offended or worried

ok, that was the most intense match i have ever seen in my entire life.

"what do you guys think about brad pitt and his "architectural career"?"

I suggest he take a break and do some street art.

blackharp, it might have to do with the frequency in which this topic comes up as a thread. this certainly is not the first.

glad to see nadal take it to federer.

Call me old fashioned, but I still can make out the distinction between an "Architect" and an "architect".

Brad Pitt, members of the computer industry, politicians and all the others can play at being an "architect" all they want - the state still says that I'm an "Architect" by reason of my education, experience and license - and they're not. I'm ok with that and don't feel at all threatened by these pretenders.

Don't we have something else much more important to discuss?

Hear, hear, Quiz.

By the way, in reference to this thread's title, this is nothing new.

Professional architects were almost always "rich people": well-educated elites with sufficient time, resources and "breeding" to pursue an involved and elevated calling. Plebians like you and me might be builders, but not Architects.

Don't people read history anymore?

dr. dre.... i never thought about that before... do you think he's really pretentious about it like some 'real doctors' who demand you call them 'doctor so and so'

Who you callin' plebian?

You probably haven't worked in a high-end boutique firm have you?

Rich people who hire you to design their houses or buildings think they ARE architects! They know more than you because they are paying you, they are smarter than you because you are working for them.

I have seen clients walk in with graph paper sketches and say "I want it exactly like this!" "but you cant..." "No, I want it like this"

I now liken a career in Architecture to Smoking Cigarettes.
Even with all of the warnings, people do it anyway.

: When you go into a barber shop or hair salon, don't you tell the barber / stylist EXACTLY how you want your hair done ?

Does that make you a barber or a stylist ?

If I'm paying for a service, I'm going to want to have some significant say in how that service is performed and the sort of results I expect -- the interaction between client and service provider is an inherent charactersitic of services - especially in a "personal service" business like architecture.

We bitch here a lot about our clients having an opinion and wanting it their way. I thinks that's a self-destructive attitude -- it's their money and we have to find ways to collaborate with our clients in a productive, positive and professional manner.

i actually read this in h&g magazine in 90's and knew the architect.

"architect did everything we designed but didn't have time to do"

the owners were financial ceo's, mind you..

Yes, it's true! People with money (pronounced "CLI-ENTS") who hire architects actually have minds and preferences of their own! Even an idea or two!

If ONLY they'd told me about this in school....

Sell the woman what she wants

--architecture has left the building.™--

quizzical- FTR I cut my own hair, so I guess that does make me a barber.

"If I'm paying for a service, I'm going to want to have some significant say in how that service is performed and the sort of results I expect"

It is this attitude that I am talking about. Why should you (the client) who has no experience in a specific field have a say in how the service is performed? One doesn't tell a lawyer what to say in court, why should a client TELL you HOW to design a house? They will obviously have opinions about what they want, but they shouldn't tell you how to do your job. I think we are talking about two different things because I do not disagree with anything else that you say. It's their money, and ultimately their house, but it's the lack of respect for one's profession that I am getting at.

It annoys me when architects are only sought out to fill out the paper work and stamp drawings because "I know what I want, why the hell do I have to pay an architect" clients come along. Maybe I have been jaded with one too many REALLY bad clients at my old job.

I don't think that is accurate Vindingo. Other professions regularly deal with the same concerns. People often question their doctors, even going online and reading up on their symptoms prior to appoinments. They don't sit their blindly waiting for a doctors diagnosis, they actively take part in the process, and decide on a course of treatment. Lawyers discuss their cases with clients, and depending on the circumstances, decide how to proceed. It's no different. You can't exist in a vacuum free of clients, it doesn't make sense.

As for especially rude clients, those are just people, they come in all shapes and sizes.

In my mind, a client who sits idly by and does not participate in the process is not a very good client. I want my clients to bring their own thought to the table and criticize what I do for them. This does not mean that they steamroll the process and assume the roll of designer as vindingo alludes to, but I do think that designing is a collaborative process between client, architect or designer, and any vendors hired fabricate that design.

"Why should you (the client) who has no experience in a specific field have a say in how the service is performed?"

As sidney Robinson, UIC's former finest said to us in studio once - "Anyone who uses buildings tachnically qualifies as an expert in architecture".

I guess you then have to deal with them as you would any other peer.

we all have a choice about who we accept as clients ... I've been doing this for quite a while now and I'm totally convinced the best clients and the best projects emerge from circumstances where we, as architects, can listen carefully to what the client needs and wants, be receptive to their ideas, then add additional value through our own expertise and creativity. but, there's going to be some give and take in that process -- this is no longer school, where you can draw what you feel like drawing.

many clients feel (rightfully so) that we're only interested in our own ideas about design (that whole "monuments to ourselves" thing) and not sufficiently concerned with their budget or or their schedule or their concern for the look and feel of the project. these circumstances lead some clients to a certain insistence about the project outcomes -- they don't trust us to deliver what they need and want. while you can blame the client for this, in reality, it's our problem to solve.

truly, some clients can be outrageously difficult, and you're free to resign from those commissions -- but, on balance, we have the capacity to develop a relationship with clients that is based on mutual trust and respect. a big part of our job is making that relationship work.

It makes me laugh when architects bleat on about doctors and layers. In a time of crisis who are you going to turn too? an architect?!? Doctors and lawyers are there to protect and maintain the unarguably most important aspects of life, your (and your families) health and financial situation. Architects come quite a bit further down the list of importance and function.

... as long as it isn't your lawyer 'doctoring' the evidence ;-p

I still connect the title 'architect' with something more personally aspirational than professionally. Consequently, although I'm legally an Architect and although, admittedly, it feels much more comfortable using this simple job description than 'architectural assistant' which I had to do for years and years after graduating, I don't plan to 'boast' about the fact until I've overseen the design and construction of something I'm proud to call 'architecture'.

A Villa is a mashin constructed by an Architect !