Listen, I advocate for an utter dissolution of the term architect. I think an architect’s skills are completely wasted on making buildings. But I don’t see it as weakening the profession, I see it as strengthening. It means that the profession can find traction in other fields: the architect as strategist, as politician, as planner; the architect as curator or editor or writer, as activist or storyteller. Finding ways to operate in other disciplines just gives us much more agency. — Tank Magazine
This is the direction we're headed and I agree with it. If you want to design and erect buildings, be a Registered Architect. If you get the education of an architect and want to improve the world in all kinds of other non-materiallly-based ways, you're an architect.
h/t to Javo Cado.
41 Comments
Thank you for posting this. Liam as well as Geoff Manaugh, among others such as Lebbeus Woods are prime examples of how to leverage the Architect's thought processes and to poke the world in it's current state, and to do it from a subversive position all of their own. What I observe is my fellow Architect brethren poking with great enthusiasm at first. Then getting reprimanded and then start studying for the next ARE. Those who are creating impact and poke again and again from their own point of view understand that a safety net does not exist nor will it ever exist in our profession and that the safety net of making a 'difference' as an RA is in fact a spider's web.
nice article...I agree 100%!
Why get rid of the term architect though? Why not just welcome the expanded definition that is already forming?
There are many architects working in non-standard ways but still deal with practical concerns that engage the public and clients. And there are many people from other fields who are designing buildings and spaces. There is overlap and blurring boundaries, but architecture isn't going away. So why should the architect go away?
In my mind, davvid, it's about broadening the general public's understanding of what our skills are. Yes, we're trained to design buildings, but we're also trained to look at problems holistically, to consider the concerns of all parties to the work, etc.
Or as Matthew Hoffman tweeted about this article: "...the takeaway is that 'architect' is a strategy - not a profession".
Also, as former (much-missed) constant Archinecter architechnophilia tweeted at me, let's add the word "only", to say: "an architect's skills are completely wasted on ONLY making buildings".
"the takeaway is that 'architect' is a strategy"
I can get behind that idea. When Kanye said "everything needs to actually be architected", I think we knew what he meant even though he was ripped apart for saying it.
There will continue to be licensed architects who understand themselves as architects in a traditional sense. But I think we'll see a lot of hybridization, especially as the public's understanding of space evolves with new technology. The term architect and architecture is being used all the time in a non-metaphorical way to describe all kinds of non-physical structures and the people who design them.
Great....So in an era when only refining one's professional specialty is profitable...non licensed 'architects' (in reality an oxymoron) or shall I say wanna-be-poser architects are pushing to broaden and generalize the title even more.
As if the average potential client and Joe Public in need of architecture services isn't already hopelessly confused enough about the value we bring and what we do.
Thanks all you posers...when are you going to find some other profession to wreck? Isn't there some other job/ professional title you can inflate beyond any value or meaning?
Why not become 'doctors of design' or something?
Or 'engineers of a limitless number of hair brained ideas unrelated to habitable structures which mean nothing substantial to nobody'
Why must you pick on architecture?
Broadly speaking you are not intelligent enough, not disciplined enough, not hard working enough, and certainly not ethical enough (e.g. the insistence that you are qualified to apply the title architect to yourselves) to ever qualify for actually being...a bonafide registered Architect.
Get the professional degree, professional experience, and then pass the professional examination and then you can be a bonafide Architect in private and public venues and shed the poser status.
Until then anyone who claims they are an architect or allows other people to represent them as an architect to other people is nothing more than a poser, plain and simple.
You know who you are. You know what you are (and are not).
Thank you for sharing your opinion, Good_Knight. You seem a bit angered by the conversation. Is there anything you'd like to add that discusses the ability for RA's to advance our profession?
Part of what is disrupting the profession is that the public no longer assumes that a licensed architect can actually design an attractive building or interior space.
I await your response to David eagerly, Good_Knight, but want to point out that I'm a registered architect (12 years now? IIRC) and I totally support changes to the legal title "architect".
But that's not really what this discussion is about: the article is about broadening the public's understanding of what architects can do. If an architect only wants to design buildings, that's fine, no one is stopping them. But architects are involved in so much more of how the built environment and the society that inhabits it operates than just the HSW of the structures. No one is "picking on" architects. We're trying to point out how (to quote you) "intelligent, hard-working, disciplined, and ethical" we are beyond drawing blueprints.
"Why must you pick on [A]rchitecture?" wrote Good_Knight. You unfortunately have missed the point in Liam's interview and have relegated it so simply picking on Architecture- however as I said before, thank you for sharing your subjective opinion.
However, the advancement of any profession– be it music(Phil Glass), be it writing(Anais Nin) needs to have a critical understanding of the present moment and the needs that exist from society. When this happens there will always be backlash from the populous as was the case for both these individuals in their own beginnings.
Being weighed down by historical baggage is never good in any situation be it Political, Personal or Business. With that said, it is paramount to learn from our past and keep moving forward.
"Part of what is disrupting the profession is that the public no longer assumes that a licensed architect can actually design an attractive building or interior space."
Bingo.
I love to read these conversations and replace "architect" with "doctor", "architecture" with "medicine".
Look, we're all smart, hard-working people. It's ok to do other things in life besides "architecture". It's a great education, but so are creative writing, engineering and industrial design.
I propose we change the name of the profession to "kanye" and drop all the baggage about buildings.
Severn Clay- Youman. I'm digging the Yeezy comment. At the end of the day it's about living a happy life- I believe that creatively one could make the argument to focus on putting rad shit into the world that makes us happy. Baggage is a dangerous thing to cling to, especially when your particular piece of luggage is a pain in the ass to transport.
Kanyetects
Good Knight:
When was the last time you designed and BUILT what you designed and I mean, built with your hands. YOUR hands.
When did you direct teams of craft trades on a daily basis overseeing everything that is being done on the construction end.
When you design and build (not just loose oversight but being in charge of assembling the teams of craft trades and being personally involved with the crafts... only then will you truly be an Architect based on the meaning from its origins in Greece.... Arkhitekton
αρχιτέκτων
or
Aρχιτέκτων
Until then.... learn a little humility.
Utterly bizarre, illogical, nonsensical non thinking 'thought' processes on full display in this thread. Still:
"I propose we change the name of the profession to "kanye" and drop all the baggage about buildings."
Idea of aimless 20-30 something hipster posers uniting around their 'kanye' profession resoundingly approved by overwhelming majority of bonafide practicing architects.
Be gone, please. And for god sake don't come back.
"Utterly bizarre, illogical, nonsensical non thinking 'thought' processes on full display"
This is normal. Just wait until Miles catches wind of this.
^^ it is the internet...after all...
what - no one extracted this qoute from Liam
"I worked for Zaha Hadid, designing science-museum-opera-art gallery-China-Dubai projects. All of which, in the context of making and shaping cities right now, is utterly fucking irrelevant. "
this all old stuff, like 20 years ago, at least the way he is talking about it. it's just ubiquitous now and EVERYONE finally gets it....yes - 20 years ago, so not buying his Sci-Fi argument. of course he is talking about Justin Bieber world, so maybe he is just dumbing it down now that EVERYONE gets it....
with that said - about Architect. here are two recent real stories to see how pointless and stupid this all is....
Pay me so you can sue me:
client "Hey what are you charging me again?"
me "Well, its a small enough job you can probably pull the permit as a home owner."
client "Do you need to seal the drawings?"
me "Ask the city but the state doesn't really require it."
client "Whats the difference."
me "$xxx for the drawings you pull permit on and $xxxx for me to seal it. Basically its to cover my insurance incase you want to sue me."
client "LMAO! so wait, I can pay you more so that I can sue you, but pay you less I can sue myself?"
You that kind of architect:
client "I'm a developer, investor, etc...looking for an architect to help me on many of my projects, tell me about yourself."
me "Residential, commercial, multi-family etc..."
client "You have stamp."
me "Yes, I'm that kind of architect."
Here is a proposition for Academia:
Registered Architect education - 5 years B.Arch or 3 year M.Arch
Architect education (Liberal Arts) - 4 years B.A.
absolutely no reason for the non licensed degree to be any different than an art degree or something, just keep the studio culture going which is the basis for this "out of the box" architect training.
Good Knight,
I don't know Kayne from another Joe Blow including you. I personally careless. I just had to poke fun at the kanye title.
What is your problem?
Easy now, Good Knight,
Some of us are into our late 30's, 40's and beyond, working at excellent firms on actual buildings with broad teams of specialists, and working on all the associated strategy, management and marketing that allows complex organizations to function. Not everyone in such a firm needs to be licensed, and when profits are slim all around it makes little sense to take on additional expense or liability.
It is the quality, ingenuity and integrity of the work that we, as a company build and stand behind, that ultimately matters.
Perhaps if we were all ruthless opportunists or unstable loners you would have a point.
I think people are taking Kanye West's speech two years ago too far out of context. Perhaps from a legal standpoint in the domain of built environment as in buildings and structures, a person may not use the title architect without a license. An argument can be that the who licensing law itself is in itself as it stands is illegal and unconstitutional. However, that argument is for another day. Until laws change, we have the laws as they are and we are as citizens are required to follow the laws or we face the possibility of ramifications for violating law.
I can care less if Kayne pursue a degree in architecture, undergoes internship and some day become license as a Registered/Licensed Architect. That is his life choice and sure let him as anyone else should be allowed to pursue a degree in any public college/university. Private colleges have their own policies.
I'm a building designer. That is my occupation. If a client wants me to design them a single family residence or other exempted buildings, that is what I am paid to do.
I do not want to approach architecture as just a weekend hobby because it is terrible waste of time and money to learn this profession when you don't come anywhere close to a return on investment of time and money.
When I read Good_Knight's posts above, I do not know or understand what his problem is.
the doctor will see you now.
waiting music.
Good Knight, Im really not sympathetic to the ego of RA's...I know many want to feel important and exclusive... but the truth is that architecture is a much different profession and that attitude is limiting the overall reach of the profession. Limiting "architecture" to the duties of an RA does not increase the significance of the title...it just minimizes it.
If architecture is a strategy rather than a profession, then surely anyone can do it because I don't think training to look at problems holistically is exclusive to architecture. Architecture teaches many skills that can be applied outside of its core, but the same applies in most fields of study. But to associate an architectural education with a future as a strategist, politician etc as Liam suggests, only undermines the academic paths for those specific roles.
Liam is trying to broaden the broaden the minds of the architecture community and I am sure there are many architects who would make fine politicians. But conversely I am sure there are politicians who would make fine architects. So this should not simply be about architects, but about how any skilled person can use their skills outside their core field of study. Unless of course architects are the only ones with multi-faceted skills.
Mr Banks,
Your right.
Anyone who takes even a few basic design courses or any course where you study the book "The Universal Traveler: A Soft-Systems Guide to: Creativity, Problem-Solving, and the Process of Reaching Goals" to a significant level. Virtually every occupation where creative problem solving takes and applies soft skills taught in Architecture and any other occupation where creative thinking is involved.
What Liam Young implies about the vast avenues where these skills can be used is great. We have an over supply of students enrolling into architecture programs and with the supply of graduates, we have too many graduates with no job opportunities for them in traditional architecture. However, there's a catch. Most occupations are not going to hire them just because they have a universal skill. They need hard skills that are occupation specific.
This usually means that you have to under go additional learning to get a degree in the specific field or self-directed learning and developing a portfolio of work that demonstrates sufficient knowledge in the field. This isn't something, you learn over night to be competitively good that they will hire you.
In an age of degree credentials being paramount, it is very difficult to just get a degree in one field and go into another. You need a be in college virtually as long as I have been in if not longer to get a good range of diversity of careers but you can't just wouldn't want to goo too deep into any particular field like getting doctorates because you'd might not live long enough to pay off all those student loans.
So China is building a mega city at the same time when "building design" (architecture) is being devalued into some kind of overwrought nonsense. Maybe dentists should think outside of the box, you know, their skills are not being properly appreciated in pop culture or something.
Quacks.
I think a fundamental error in architectural thinking is that projects come from architects but they don't, they come from people. Architects draw them. I blame starchitect culture, that you are supposed to just give your money to an architect and they will create your masterpiece for you. I also blame CAD culture, that the job is literally 90% moving around little lines on a screen. If you have ambition beyond that, there is a lot of use for intelligent and thoughtful designers who can work outside the box. It is nice out here.
Sounds like Good Knight could use a therapist to work through some anger and self-absorption issues. Meanwhile, get back to work answering your RFI's!
Many of the oponents seem to be missing the point here...First of all, your blessing is not needed to proceed with such endeavors...There are, and always have been people working "outside the box" of traditional practice...The issue is not whether such things may exist, but instead what umbrella they will live under...If you want these innovative and potentially ground breaking firms/people under another "umbrella term" then its really a shame for architecture...The reason that some want to be invluded under the "architecture umbrella" is because they were breed from the dicipline either academically or professionally and they feel that their work is related to architecture or because they feel that architects are their tribe....people are not advocating for this because they are wannabes or posers...Exclusion is apparantly what many RAs want though...you know what happens when diversity is low...
Bumping this to point out that the author is on the latest Archinect Sessions 1:1 podcast. Here is the link.
Thanks Donna!
Get educated on what the differences are between the trades and the professions peeps:
http://www.beatonglobal.com/pdfs/GeorgeBeaton_Why_professionalism_is_still_relevant.pdf
(psst: and no the schools are not going to teach this because most "arch" professors (as if there is such a thing if they are not required to be licensed) are weak, fragile and unlicensed/ unlicens-able i.e. NOT professional architects)
...
lol
why would an arch professor need to be licensed? I had several foreign professors that were fantastic and that knew more than the few licensed locals
^ How do you know what you don't know if you are a student? I.e. How do you know that they "knew more than the few licensed locals" if you are a student? Is that not patently self evident? Pure ignorance. I.e. You don't even know what you don't know.
Was a student^ in retrospect
one prof worked for many years in various firms in europe...no license...great prof...
how do you know what I know if you dont know me? oh yeah narcissism....
Made via clips from an 1989 interview with Lebbeus Woods, Michael Sorkin and Elliot Willensky. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1ky7iwppSQ
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.