Using the term “architect”!


Couldn’t help sharing this interesting debate (NOT) on archinect about the conditions for calling yourself an architect…
The diversity of issues approached is so vast that I can’t even understand how you pass from one topic to the other (believe me, there are a lot of participations).
Yet what I don’t understand is: how is the most important answer missing:
You can call yourself an architect when you are authorize, by whoever office or organization is responsible for such matter, to practice architecture.
How hard can this be? And isn’t it the norm for most professions? Only architects, first, pose such question, and second, spend precious time, discussing it. How I understand you people…

PS01: I agree with the opinion (one of many that popped up and have nothing to do with the question, but since I’m an architect, I’m just going with the flow) that those IT technicians that call themselves IT architect or software architect need to find a new professional designation. We came first, we have copyrights, just because the Matrix named the creator architect, that doesn’t mean that you can just make it yours!
You have to understand, the only things architects have is actually their designation. Built work – takes time, if ever. Money – nope! At least not from architecture work. Privileges – few. Slight recognition of value from society when you say: “good morning, I’m an architect” – a lot!

PS02: just to make this clear, according to my own designation (above) I’m an architect, even if I haven’t pay the annual share at the architects association! What? Like I said, no money!

20120710-230006.jpg
Image: Edvard Munch – The Scream, 1893

Advertisements