I was recently browsing through Morphosis 2004-2018 published book, and I always enjoy going to the end credits where they index projects with team members' names. The one thing I noticed was Thom Mayne's name at the top as "Design Director" on every project, and that no one else from the Morphosis team was under the heading as an "Architect". This brings up two distinct observations. One, T. Mayne beating around the bush of not just claiming himself as the Architect while everyone else is following rank; and Two, "Designer" and "Director" replacing the classification of an "Architect" regardless of the team's rank.
Is Morphosis in some way abandoning the traditional classification of an Architect, by using the word Designer as a higher critical thinker?
I'm sure there are other architectural offices which publish books on their own work, and classify themselves in a similar fashion, but none are coming to mind at the moment. I wonder if the classification as a Principal Architect, Project Architect, Design Architect, etc..., are too traditional and not avant-garde enough for today's readers. But, I'm sure while introducing yourself to a client as the "Architect", while trying to seal the deal on a $250,000,000.00 project, is perfectly fine.
midlander
Nov 6, 19 2:51 am
no, the problem is that architect is a profession, not a job title or role within a firm of architects. Firms have hierarchies, and calling everyone 'architect' doesn't clarify what they actually do within the office. Design Director tells you someone is focused on leading the work of the designers, and focuses on the design. Whereas many bigger companies have managing principals, or technical directors focused on those aspects of the work. Design Architect or Project Architect are typically mid-level roles, focused on individual projects or even specific parts of certain projects and not the work of a team or office as a whole.
Cosmos
Nov 6, 19 6:46 am
@midlander, this actually makes a lot of sense. Thank you for that input. I also don't think it has anything to do, as to what state or country you're registered in, when taking credit of your own work in a publication. I think it only matters as to whether you can seal drawings or not as the architect when you're not registered in that state.
BulgarBlogger
Nov 6, 19 8:03 am
I always thoght jt was so the unlicnesed empyees don't get their feelings hurt by feeling left out. Otherwise all the interior designers on the team would break out into tears and cry.
midlander
Nov 6, 19 8:17 am
i've worked in offices where most of the interior designers are architects too. in an office of 150 with 100 architects, the title 'architect' doesn't explain much about what you do.
BulgarBlogger
Nov 6, 19 8:25 am
LOL- Why? because it (architecture) encompasses interior deisgn too? The latest excuse from interior designers...
midlander
Nov 6, 19 9:25 am
i'm not sure your aim, but whatever. Interiors is a legitimate and interesting part of the profession. Though Gensler got big by exploiting this disinterest from 'serious' architects, and is still a leader in interior architecture.
monosierra
Nov 6, 19 8:53 am
The Design Director leads design but the Architect does the tedious work ...
OddArchitect
Nov 6, 19 10:55 am
I do both so . . .
monosierra
Nov 6, 19 11:15 am
That is ideal! But some firms maintain a hard firewall between designers and technical designers. Helps with production to some degree but very bad for one's growth as a designer if stuck in one track.
tduds
Nov 6, 19 11:28 am
midlander makes a lot of sense here. Everybody else really brought their own baggage into this thread eh.
I was recently browsing through Morphosis 2004-2018 published book, and I always enjoy going to the end credits where they index projects with team members' names. The one thing I noticed was Thom Mayne's name at the top as "Design Director" on every project, and that no one else from the Morphosis team was under the heading as an "Architect". This brings up two distinct observations. One, T. Mayne beating around the bush of not just claiming himself as the Architect while everyone else is following rank; and Two, "Designer" and "Director" replacing the classification of an "Architect" regardless of the team's rank.
Is Morphosis in some way abandoning the traditional classification of an Architect, by using the word Designer as a higher critical thinker?
I'm sure there are other architectural offices which publish books on their own work, and classify themselves in a similar fashion, but none are coming to mind at the moment. I wonder if the classification as a Principal Architect, Project Architect, Design Architect, etc..., are too traditional and not avant-garde enough for today's readers. But, I'm sure while introducing yourself to a client as the "Architect", while trying to seal the deal on a $250,000,000.00 project, is perfectly fine.
no, the problem is that architect is a profession, not a job title or role within a firm of architects. Firms have hierarchies, and calling everyone 'architect' doesn't clarify what they actually do within the office. Design Director tells you someone is focused on leading the work of the designers, and focuses on the design. Whereas many bigger companies have managing principals, or technical directors focused on those aspects of the work. Design Architect or Project Architect are typically mid-level roles, focused on individual projects or even specific parts of certain projects and not the work of a team or office as a whole.
@midlander, this actually makes a lot of sense. Thank you for that input. I also don't think it has anything to do, as to what state or country you're registered in, when taking credit of your own work in a publication. I think it only matters as to whether you can seal drawings or not as the architect when you're not registered in that state.
I always thoght jt was so the unlicnesed empyees don't get their feelings hurt by feeling left out. Otherwise all the interior designers on the team would break out into tears and cry.
i've worked in offices where most of the interior designers are architects too. in an office of 150 with 100 architects, the title 'architect' doesn't explain much about what you do.
LOL- Why? because it (architecture) encompasses interior deisgn too? The latest excuse from interior designers...
i'm not sure your aim, but whatever. Interiors is a legitimate and interesting part of the profession. Though Gensler got big by exploiting this disinterest from 'serious' architects, and is still a leader in interior architecture.
The Design Director leads design but the Architect does the tedious work ...
I do both so . . .
That is ideal! But some firms maintain a hard firewall between designers and technical designers. Helps with production to some degree but very bad for one's growth as a designer if stuck in one track.
midlander makes a lot of sense here. Everybody else really brought their own baggage into this thread eh.