I've done both, and I'd say that if you're truly equally interested, go with graphic design. There's less schooling, no licensing exams, less liability involved in doing freelance or starting your own business, and (my personal favorite) shorter projects with a greater variety of clients. I find this last point vastly entertaining, it lets me learn more from my clients than I ever did in architecture. Basically it's equally rewarding (in different ways of course) for much less investment.
I think in terms of job growth potential graphic design is better but your chances will be much better if you learn web design and some 3D animation in addition to graphic design because graphic designers who only work with photoshop,illustrator etc.. are dime a dozen.
In terms of money I'd say the salaries are almost the same.
In terms of satisfaction..it depends on what you want,what you're passionate about. In architecture you build tangible things which people use,inhabit so when you see a building YOU built it'd give you a lot of satisfaction.Graphic design is just...graphics but it is much more entertaining than architecture and you don't have to get licensed so you don't have worries of getting sued.
If you are from a blue collar backgorund, either will appear fairly appealing.
If you come from an upper middle class background as I do, you'll probably wind up disappointed in all categories including, but not necessarily limited to:
1)jobs
2)growth potential
3)money
4)satisfaction.
If your IQ is 110 and you like to use your brain, I would advise you to not do either. A good brain is a terrible thing to waste.
If your IQ is 100 (average for white male) or lower, then by all means the money (35K post MArch school before the meltdown), growth potential (CAD Monkey 10 years out of school, Silverback at 20), and satisfaction (hey, this sure beats diggin' ditches or fixing mufflers on cars or scraping burrs off of recently welded handrailings!) will probably surpass your previous life's expectations.
what do you mean cad monkey and silverback? i come from middle class. I dont want to mow lawns for a living. I want to work in something creative... trying to get feedback from graphic designers and architects.
mtay, ignore PaulRevere. He is a troll. Do not feed the troll.
Truthfully most people in either field will not make a lot of money, and both jobs and satisfaction will be sporadic. Some days it will feel great and worthwhile and others you'll wish you majored in business or communications. That's just the way creative professions are.
I will say that graphic design tends to be maligned as an intellectual "lightweight" sort of field, and while this is true for many, perhaps most, in the profession, it does not have to be. There are definitely opportunities in research, strategy, and at the forefront of theory that can be intellectually equal to architecture, you just have to work for them and seek them out.
I have a degree in marketing and a degree in interior design and am currently working on my M.Arch degree.
I ran my own marketing and web design and graphic design company for six years. I made about 100K/year.
I then started my own interior design firm and I made about 250K up until the 2008 meltdown at which point my income shrank to 100K in 2008 and then 80K in 2009.
My opinion is that it is MUCH easier to become an Art Director in a firm or even in your own business than it is to become an Architect, especially a "famous" or extremely successful one.
Knowing that as I do, I'm still pursuing architecture because I love it. Even though my prospects doing it are less financially than in my other endeavors.
So the question lies with what you value more - money and job security or passion for what you do. Answer that and choose accordingly.
I still have my interior design and graphic/web/marketing businesses as well and will continue to while I have my architecture firm in the future. you don't have to pigeon hole yourself, you can do it all or you can choose what works best for you.
Yeah, I am an NCARB Certified with 12 years experience. Registered Architect in 2 states troll. Oh and I have absolutely NO idea what I am talking about...
don't you just love the internet where everybody but the experts are the experts? And experts are called trolls. Got to love it....getting wacky and tacky up in here....as usual.
mtay52 said, "what if my aspirations are art director and working in marketing in graphic design, or a principal in an architecture firm...
sounds like arch is a little tougher to break into but is it worth it to become a principal rather than to work in graphic des and marketing?"
In my experience, unless you start your own firm, you'll have to sell your soul to the corporate hierarchy gods to become a principal -or- start your own firm and get lucky enough to break even for a few years and then get big.
Either way, even if you start your fown firm you have to get licensed and that means spending -on average- 10 years working for another architect and another 3 taking the A.R.E. (Architect Registration ExaminationSSSSS don't let them fool you, there are 7 separate examinations that take a substantial number of years to pass on average...its not just a single examination that you just take one day or two and wrap up with a nice bow).
These day, imo even if you start your own firm, because you have to work for another architect (usually who has sold his/ her own soul to the AIA) you have to sell your own soul either way.
I sold mine. I'm trying to get it back. If I ever do, by starting my own firm here and now, I will still not feel it was worth it. If you are middle class BEWARE the profession of Architecture is sinking fast into lower middel to lower class status. That whole "shrinking middle class phenomenon in the US and the West in general"? The profession fo Architecture is ground zero and the proverbial canary in the coalmine.
mtay52 said, "what do you mean cad monkey and silverback? i come from middle class. I dont want to mow lawns for a living. I want to work in something creative... trying to get feedback from graphic designers and architects."
Lawyers and Dentists and Doctors do a lot more meanignful solving of problems these days...
Insiders in this profession know that CAD monkey = "intern" Basically 97.5% of all architecture graduates are expected to "pay their dues" monkeying with CAD programs in their pigeonholes, er cubicles, that the AIA adhering firms assign, er, provide for them. By the way, what other profession (lower class mind you) leverages the ignoble title of "intern" on a person who has graduated with a Masters Degree and been working in their profession for 10-40 years without passing the A.R.E. for whatever reason? Not kidding, the profession still calls an unlicensed designer an "intern" even if they've accumulated anywhere from 6 months to 600 years of exeperiece.
Computers have really handcuffed the expectations of the market reagarding Architects being looked for as problem solvers. Instead they are generally now expected to be merely "solution drafters" which other players have schemed (likek owners themselves of course and/or owners reps, including but not necesarily limited to).
silverback is a tongue in cheek way of saying Captain Cad Monkey or something to that effect. I'm sure someone else have coined this phrase but I do not know who or where. I like it though because the Silverbacks are the biggest and baddest monkeys of them all...but they are still just big monkeys who sit in cubicles, er cages, all day, and fling poo at one another on archinect.
The great thing about graphic design is the diversity present. If you have some basic editing skills and learn print design, you can always end up doing graphic design for your related interests.
And this doesn't always have to revolve around publishing-- you could be a graphic designer for an architecture firm and kill two birds with one stone.
Graphic design at least allows you to do these things. Some of these jobs are hard to come by if not harder than a general architecture job! But if you have specific interests, there is always some variety of publication that shares that interest.
That flexibility also translates into other fields too. If you get a job with a large publishing firm (like Conde Nast), you could be designing fashion magazines one day and golf magazines the next.
what about schooling? differences? similarities... one harder than the other? could I do a marketing degree at the same time as graphic design? i would think an arch degree is fine on its own...
more especially when PaulRevere or another variations of his pseudonymns are involved in the thread *wink* *wink*
I don't exactly have hordes of fans on archinect. I guess I don't have an especially soothing "bedside manner"...not that I care either. I'm having too much fun with life and life is just too darn short!
Marketing is very business related with statistics and consumer behavior
Graphic Design is better for you if you want to do design and learn about design.
Architecture is harder in my opinion - in my experience in my program anyway it's more about teaching you how to "think" and conceptualize as well as the more technical aspects.
Graphics. I do both now, primarily graphic/web/3D/video. My company is a 'creative agency', we do pretty much everything on the marketing/presentation side of things.
Graphic will pay you just as well (or better), offer much more flexibility (easy to be a freelancer and have steady clients, or start your own business, no "pay your dues").
Much less schooling, and school is a breeze compared to architecture (yes, you can have a life).
I find all design to be very fulfilling. Graphics moves much faster, you get paid quicker, there is a true "talent gets paid more" mentality that there is not in architecture.
Feel free to email me or ask questions on more detailed pros/cons, business side, etc.
Architecture or Graphic Design
Interested in working in any kind of design field. Thinking graphic design or architecture. GD seems to be a little less school.
Want to get architects opinions on the subject...
Graphic Design or Architecture, equally interested in both I think... which do you think is best for
1)jobs
2)growth potential
3)money
4)satisfaction
Thanks.
relentless
I've done both, and I'd say that if you're truly equally interested, go with graphic design. There's less schooling, no licensing exams, less liability involved in doing freelance or starting your own business, and (my personal favorite) shorter projects with a greater variety of clients. I find this last point vastly entertaining, it lets me learn more from my clients than I ever did in architecture. Basically it's equally rewarding (in different ways of course) for much less investment.
I think in terms of job growth potential graphic design is better but your chances will be much better if you learn web design and some 3D animation in addition to graphic design because graphic designers who only work with photoshop,illustrator etc.. are dime a dozen.
In terms of money I'd say the salaries are almost the same.
In terms of satisfaction..it depends on what you want,what you're passionate about. In architecture you build tangible things which people use,inhabit so when you see a building YOU built it'd give you a lot of satisfaction.Graphic design is just...graphics but it is much more entertaining than architecture and you don't have to get licensed so you don't have worries of getting sued.
Its all relative.
If you are from a blue collar backgorund, either will appear fairly appealing.
If you come from an upper middle class background as I do, you'll probably wind up disappointed in all categories including, but not necessarily limited to:
1)jobs
2)growth potential
3)money
4)satisfaction.
If your IQ is 110 and you like to use your brain, I would advise you to not do either. A good brain is a terrible thing to waste.
If your IQ is 100 (average for white male) or lower, then by all means the money (35K post MArch school before the meltdown), growth potential (CAD Monkey 10 years out of school, Silverback at 20), and satisfaction (hey, this sure beats diggin' ditches or fixing mufflers on cars or scraping burrs off of recently welded handrailings!) will probably surpass your previous life's expectations.
what if my aspirations are art director and working in marketing in graphic design, or a principal in an architecture firm...
sounds like arch is a little tougher to break into but is it worth it to become a principal rather than to work in graphic des and marketing?
what do you mean cad monkey and silverback? i come from middle class. I dont want to mow lawns for a living. I want to work in something creative... trying to get feedback from graphic designers and architects.
mtay, ignore PaulRevere. He is a troll. Do not feed the troll.
Truthfully most people in either field will not make a lot of money, and both jobs and satisfaction will be sporadic. Some days it will feel great and worthwhile and others you'll wish you majored in business or communications. That's just the way creative professions are.
I will say that graphic design tends to be maligned as an intellectual "lightweight" sort of field, and while this is true for many, perhaps most, in the profession, it does not have to be. There are definitely opportunities in research, strategy, and at the forefront of theory that can be intellectually equal to architecture, you just have to work for them and seek them out.
mtay,
I have a degree in marketing and a degree in interior design and am currently working on my M.Arch degree.
I ran my own marketing and web design and graphic design company for six years. I made about 100K/year.
I then started my own interior design firm and I made about 250K up until the 2008 meltdown at which point my income shrank to 100K in 2008 and then 80K in 2009.
My opinion is that it is MUCH easier to become an Art Director in a firm or even in your own business than it is to become an Architect, especially a "famous" or extremely successful one.
Knowing that as I do, I'm still pursuing architecture because I love it. Even though my prospects doing it are less financially than in my other endeavors.
So the question lies with what you value more - money and job security or passion for what you do. Answer that and choose accordingly.
I still have my interior design and graphic/web/marketing businesses as well and will continue to while I have my architecture firm in the future. you don't have to pigeon hole yourself, you can do it all or you can choose what works best for you.
Yeah, I am an NCARB Certified with 12 years experience. Registered Architect in 2 states troll. Oh and I have absolutely NO idea what I am talking about...
don't you just love the internet where everybody but the experts are the experts? And experts are called trolls. Got to love it....getting wacky and tacky up in here....as usual.
mtay52 said, "what if my aspirations are art director and working in marketing in graphic design, or a principal in an architecture firm...
sounds like arch is a little tougher to break into but is it worth it to become a principal rather than to work in graphic des and marketing?"
In my experience, unless you start your own firm, you'll have to sell your soul to the corporate hierarchy gods to become a principal -or- start your own firm and get lucky enough to break even for a few years and then get big.
Either way, even if you start your fown firm you have to get licensed and that means spending -on average- 10 years working for another architect and another 3 taking the A.R.E. (Architect Registration ExaminationSSSSS don't let them fool you, there are 7 separate examinations that take a substantial number of years to pass on average...its not just a single examination that you just take one day or two and wrap up with a nice bow).
These day, imo even if you start your own firm, because you have to work for another architect (usually who has sold his/ her own soul to the AIA) you have to sell your own soul either way.
I sold mine. I'm trying to get it back. If I ever do, by starting my own firm here and now, I will still not feel it was worth it. If you are middle class BEWARE the profession of Architecture is sinking fast into lower middel to lower class status. That whole "shrinking middle class phenomenon in the US and the West in general"? The profession fo Architecture is ground zero and the proverbial canary in the coalmine.
Hahaha, PaulRevere is a partner!
ALL LIES.
"In June 2008 ******** was named a principal and partner of the firm"
mtay52 said, "what do you mean cad monkey and silverback? i come from middle class. I dont want to mow lawns for a living. I want to work in something creative... trying to get feedback from graphic designers and architects."
Lawyers and Dentists and Doctors do a lot more meanignful solving of problems these days...
Insiders in this profession know that CAD monkey = "intern" Basically 97.5% of all architecture graduates are expected to "pay their dues" monkeying with CAD programs in their pigeonholes, er cubicles, that the AIA adhering firms assign, er, provide for them. By the way, what other profession (lower class mind you) leverages the ignoble title of "intern" on a person who has graduated with a Masters Degree and been working in their profession for 10-40 years without passing the A.R.E. for whatever reason? Not kidding, the profession still calls an unlicensed designer an "intern" even if they've accumulated anywhere from 6 months to 600 years of exeperiece.
Computers have really handcuffed the expectations of the market reagarding Architects being looked for as problem solvers. Instead they are generally now expected to be merely "solution drafters" which other players have schemed (likek owners themselves of course and/or owners reps, including but not necesarily limited to).
silverback is a tongue in cheek way of saying Captain Cad Monkey or something to that effect. I'm sure someone else have coined this phrase but I do not know who or where. I like it though because the Silverbacks are the biggest and baddest monkeys of them all...but they are still just big monkeys who sit in cubicles, er cages, all day, and fling poo at one another on archinect.
Unicorn:
at least copper_top followed up his malicious swipe/ attempt to malign with some ostensibly useful advice!
Where is yours? As if you have any besides spewing blind hatred and wrath.
Blind? No.
I can see the bare spot on your lawn next to that little pine tree.
Do you always parallel park on the street?
As for real advice?
I've done only one. And that is graphic design.
The great thing about graphic design is the diversity present. If you have some basic editing skills and learn print design, you can always end up doing graphic design for your related interests.
And this doesn't always have to revolve around publishing-- you could be a graphic designer for an architecture firm and kill two birds with one stone.
Graphic design at least allows you to do these things. Some of these jobs are hard to come by if not harder than a general architecture job! But if you have specific interests, there is always some variety of publication that shares that interest.
That flexibility also translates into other fields too. If you get a job with a large publishing firm (like Conde Nast), you could be designing fashion magazines one day and golf magazines the next.
Unicorn, in your rabid rage, you have lost me...not that I care what in the world you could possibley be talking about anyways.
Alinsky does not work on me. I've spent a decade working up an immunity to the Alinsky poison:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUee1WvtQZU
is this how discussions on here always go? more suggestions welcome, thank you.
Just another point -
When I look in the employment ads to see what the job market is like for architects vs art directors/graphic/web designers,
there are dozens of jobs, at least in Dallas, for art directors/designers etc.
There are maybe 1 or 2 for architects.
That could be because of the economy and also location but I think it's an accurate picture of what to expect.
what about schooling? differences? similarities... one harder than the other? could I do a marketing degree at the same time as graphic design? i would think an arch degree is fine on its own...
"is this how discussions on here always go?"
more especially when PaulRevere or another variations of his pseudonymns are involved in the thread *wink* *wink*
I don't exactly have hordes of fans on archinect. I guess I don't have an especially soothing "bedside manner"...not that I care either. I'm having too much fun with life and life is just too darn short!
All the best mtay52!
Marketing is very business related with statistics and consumer behavior
Graphic Design is better for you if you want to do design and learn about design.
Architecture is harder in my opinion - in my experience in my program anyway it's more about teaching you how to "think" and conceptualize as well as the more technical aspects.
Graphics. I do both now, primarily graphic/web/3D/video. My company is a 'creative agency', we do pretty much everything on the marketing/presentation side of things.
Graphic will pay you just as well (or better), offer much more flexibility (easy to be a freelancer and have steady clients, or start your own business, no "pay your dues").
Much less schooling, and school is a breeze compared to architecture (yes, you can have a life).
I find all design to be very fulfilling. Graphics moves much faster, you get paid quicker, there is a true "talent gets paid more" mentality that there is not in architecture.
Feel free to email me or ask questions on more detailed pros/cons, business side, etc.
I agree with trace, and graphic design is much more convenient profession than architecture and you don't have to deal with boring cad files...
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.