Only licensed architects are allowed to use the title in your state. It's up to your state's professional licensing board whether you would be using the term incorrectly and whether they will pursue you for it. Considering a lot of architects also offer graphic design (a form of branding, no?) as part of their package of services, you are in very murky water as to whether you are misrepresenting yourself as a licensed professional. Only your state's licensing body can answer your question. Check their regulations.

Also, you're likely to get a LOT of static here for proposing what most of us will see as a misappropriation of the word. For example, architect is not a verb. Please don't use it that way.

MethodFusion, thanks for asking at least... I think that lb is on the money, though. What is wrong with being a "designer?" That is all I am allowed to put on my card.

Chris

Hahaha... yeah, I mean it is a great word but you'd probably get less flack if you just referred to yourself as a "brand jesus" or "brand messiah" because you "create" successful campaigns.



I even defended this when my friends introduced me as a "hopeful architect {I had recently told them about my expressed interest in trying to join an office (before I found out architecture is for suckers [thanks archinect!])}."

({[HOLY SHIT, CLARIFICATION OVERLOAD<!!!>]})

And I told them out of respect to not refer to me in any capacity as such because I'm not an architect nor do I profess architecture... as I would need to get my cherry popped bent over a desk at SCI-ARC and work for 8 years to be "an architect."

Thank you so much for the response to my question. As a Real Estate Broker in the state of CA I very much respect the effort involved in earning a designation, considering that the Broker license in this state is arguably the second most difficult license to attain second only in CA to the legal Bar Exam. My intention is to respect the title of architect as much as possible, as it is as much respected as the title of a licensed RE Broker.

I think it will be the best decision to remove the articect title from the company name specifically, so I plan to use something different, but equally creative for my industry (using the name "designer" in advertising is not exactly deemed creative), so I will give this some thought before moving forward. Thank you again for all your feedback and I wish you all the best in you businesses!

- Lisa Westhafer

While many here don't like it, the California Architects Practice Act limits the protection of the term "architect:"

§ 5500 Architect Defined
As used in this chapter, architect means a person who is licensed to practice
architecture in this state under the authority of this chapter.

§ 5500.1 Practice of Architecture Defined
(a) The practice of architecture within the meaning and intent of this chapter is
defined as offering or performing, or being in responsible control of,
professional services which require the skills of an architect in the planning of
sites, and the design, in whole or in part, of buildings, or groups of buildings
and structures.
(b) Architects' professional services may include any or all of the following:
(1) Investigation, evaluation, consultation, and advice.
(2) Planning, schematic and preliminary studies, designs, working drawings,
and specifications.
(3) Coordination of the work of technical and special consultants.
(4) Compliance with generally applicable codes and regulations, and
assistance in the governmental review process.
(5) Technical assistance in the preparation of bid documents and agreements
between clients and contractors.
(6) Contract administration.
(7) Construction observation.

§ 5536 Practice Without License or Holding Self Out as Architect;
Misdemeanor
(a) It is a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not less than one hundred dollars
($100) nor more than five thousand dollars ($5,000), or by imprisonment in a
county jail not exceeding one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment, for
any person who is not licensed to practice architecture under this chapter to
practice architecture in this state, to use any term confusingly similar to the
word architect...

I would suggest you get legal council or contact the California Board of Architects (CAB) before you use "architect" in your firm name.
You will probably need to make sure you don't use the term in a confusing way.

But Lisa, design is what you do. There's nothing wrong with using the word designer because that's your specialty! Architecture is a lot more than design (to the despair of most interns) which is why we have another name for it. If you feel "branding" is a more appropriate meaning, use it, though personally I think it's worn out.

Design, by the way, *is* both a noun and a verb - embrace it.

It's good people are at least asking this. But in principle, you are not an architect and your services have absolutely nothing to do with architecture or the architecture industry. So, no you should not use it. It's very misleading so I would recommend you try something different.

look i don't care what you call yourself, as long as you are not practicing "architecture."

Is a plumber who uses the name "Drain Doctor" really the same thing as a surgeon?

I swear to God..... for all the S#%T we have to go thru between school, IDP, and exams, I wish that there was someway to regulate all the Joe Schmoes who think it would be cute to somehow label themselves as an "Architect".

Seriously, most people who are in the actual profession of "architecture" have made significant sacrifices in order to participate in that line of work and to achieve the title of "Architect". Please have the decency to respect those sacrifices.

There's a jeweler here in Charleston called Buckar, Jewelry Architects. Is that a misrepresentation? Just curious....

As Ive said before, Id really like the NCARB or any of the state boards to go after the 'software architects' and 'architect of the war (Wolfowitz)'. I really like them to go after those guys and LOSE. So that people like me who have spent lots of time going to architecture school, and actually practicing architecture can call ourselves architects.

You can call yourself an Architect, not a "Jewelry Architect" which is someone who probably designs, draws and helps create intricate jewelry. I see no reason for Architects to worry about these uses of the word and it is not a degradation of your architectural degree.

"... the Broker license in this state is arguably the second most difficult license to attain second only in CA to the legal Bar Exam. My intention is to respect the title of architect as much as possible, as it is as much respected as the title of a licensed RE Broker."
- - Lisa Westhafer
- MethodFusion

It is encouraging that architects are as much respected as licensed RE Brokers. After all, the educational requirements, the interships, the exams, and the amount of work that goes into the projects are so similar.

and good to learn that the ARE is easier than the Real Estate exams. Are there 9 of those too, plus the California Supplemental Exam?

I feel so much better knowing the Realtors are looking out for our health, safety and welfare.

Respect.

Yeah, I would be careful about equating professions. Most on here have at least one professional degree and many of us have two degrees, experience, etc., etc.

Let's not get started on the compensation either...



But, since you asked, to my understanding you can use the word however you want if you are not practicing architecture or anything similar (real estate would be similar, imo, but what do I know).

For example, you can call yourself an 'information architect' or whatever, and nothing can be done about it.



My guess it is perfectly fine to use it. Outside of this profession, it is just a word (go figure).



And, of course, I am with sameolddoctor on this.

You can use it. You are not "misleading" or "misrepresenting" yourself in anyway, as you are not offering architectural services. If you were a designer who was offering building design services as an architect, that is what the law is about, not people who are in marketing / graphics who use the term.

There are software architects, information architects, why not branding architects?

Go for it.

I think the "Drain Doctor" comparison has merit. It's very clear you're not calling a medical doctor so I would think you could use architect if you are clearly not practicing architecture. However, I don't think it's the best business idea as "Method Fusion, Brand Architects" is not as clear as "Drain Doctor". I think as a branding strategy (especially if that is service you are providing!) it would not be in you best interest to not have the most unambiguous business name possible. You obviously don't want anyone calling you up to design an addition on their house. Why not "Method Fusion, Brand Strategies"?

And if you use that, you owe me $10k. That's for thinking the Brokers' exam is more difficult than the ARE.

As you will see in this thread, there are many self-loathing architects out there.

If you are not an architect, dont call yourself an architect and dont sell your product as "architecture" when it's not actually architecture. It's that simple people.

The jewler people design intricate and beautiful jewelry, but it's not architecture, it's jewelry. They should call themselves jewelry designers. I very rarely see graphic designers calling themselves "graphic architects" sp people should follow their leads.

As for all those programming nerds who call themselves "network architects, software, architects, and all that other horseshit. They are not architects -- they are programmers and software engineers. They never got their degrees at places called "school of software architecture." So, yes it's misleading and just annoying.

So in conclusion, if you want to call yourself an architect, go to architecture school, complete your IDP, take your exams, and then call yourself an architect.

"yes it's misleading and just annoying.

So in conclusion, if you want to call yourself an architect, go to architecture school, complete your IDP, take your exams, and then call yourself an architect."
-med.

exactly!

(except in cases of metaphorical use)

From Webster:

ar·chi·tect

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>

There are two basic definitions in the dictionary, first one quite clear second one open to interpretation, the jewelers and software developers are using the word correctly within the context of what they are doing "designing jewelry or software and undertaking the creation of their plan".

All you Architects out there have nothing to worry about on the account of Jewelers, software developers and the occasional state department war junkie or politician naming themselves an "______ Architect".

I basically agree with Beta on this. I don't worry about the semantics of description it is the services of the work offered that matters.

And the websters definition is a bit narrow from a historical standpoint. One in which the meaning of words is always developing.

architect (plural architects)

1. A professional who designs buildings or other structures, or who prepares plans and superintends construction.

Plato made the causes of things to be matter, ideas, and an efficient architect.

2. A person who plans, devises or contrives the achievement of a desired result.

Peisistratus was the first architect of the Iliad and the Odyssey.



Software development could easily be planned, contrive, and even constructed.

Where as an architect trying to associate themselves as say a surgeon really does not have the same application, imho.

OK, SAB, but Webster's is one thing, state laws are another. State licensing boards don't give a damn what a dictionary says, they care about the lawful regulation of certain words.

Which goes back to what I originally told MethodFusion: ask your state board, or risk (however small) them seeing it as a violation of a statute.

"1563, from M.Fr. architecte, from L. architectus, from Gk. arkhitekton "master builder," from arkhi- "chief" (see archon) + tekton "builder, carpenter" (see texture). "

so architect in the true sense of the word is inviolably concerned with building, structure, construction etc.

the other uses mentioned in the above posts are the metaphorical cases i alluded to earlier. i.e. the architect of the war is an analogous act of planning, developing a structure and "building". s/he is not really the architect, but performs the analogous duties of an architect transposed to another medium.

the real issue here, i believe, is that realtors, as represented in this post, are not even considering holding themselves to the educational and professional standards of an architect as exemplary, but rather condescendly admit that architects may indeed meet the apparently higher standards of being a licensed realtor.

how is this possible. i find that shocking; and a little insulting. doesn't anyone else? architecture used to be a very respected profession.

"1563, from M.Fr. architecte, from L. architectus, from Gk. arkhitekton "master builder," from arkhi- "chief" (see archon) + tekton "builder, carpenter" (see texture). "

so architect in the true sense of the word is inviolably concerned with building, structure, construction etc.

the other uses mentioned in the above posts are the metaphorical cases i alluded to earlier. i.e. the architect of the war is an analogous act of planning, developing a structure and "building". s/he is not really the architect, but performs the analogous duties of an architect transposed to another medium.

the real issue here, i believe, is that realtors, as represented in this post, are not even considering holding themselves to the educational and professional standards of an architect as exemplary, but rather condescendly admit that architects may indeed meet the apparently higher standards of being a licensed realtor.

how is this possible. i find that shocking; and a little insulting. doesn't anyone else? architecture used to be a very respected profession.

sorry about the double

Sorry to dredge up an old topic, but I stumbled upon something interesting in some Connecticut AIA documents that I thought might be a good addition to this thread.

They go out of their way to state a special exception for the use of the term "architect" when not associated with building design.

"The use of the terms “architectural” and “architectural design” normally cannot be used, especially in connection with building design. Such terms may be used in some cases when it is clear that the advertised service has nothing to do with building design. An example of such use is a hair salon that uses the name “Hair Architects.”"

I'd say being a "brand architect" is pretty similar, but then I'm not the guy who issues the fine. For what it's worth, I'd also say it's a douche-y name and you should not use it. I'm don't really take issue with appropriation of the term when it's related to structure - information architecture, for example - but this ain't that.

Anyhow, kudos, as far as I'm concerned, to the CT AIA for their clarity in calling out this issue as they did.