Architect - A Misleading Label..?

How Should Architects Practice - On the inside, or on the outside?

The role of architects always seems to be a viable topic of discussion among those involved in or around the profession. What are our responsibilities? What problems should we seek to resolve? To what level should we impose our knowledge+opinions on our clients? All of these are appropriate and reasonable questions to ask. However, not all of the questions we may ask ourselves, have direct answers. The answers to these questions [and others] are often times project specific. 

Take for example, our current topic of discussion; architecture in terms of the interior and exterior of a building. If architects focus their attention on the design of the envelope of a building, ultimately retreating from the programmatic design of the interior, should they be considered any lesser of an architect? Should architects always seek to cast their opinion on the entirety of a project? 

Perhaps 'architect' is a misleading label; for what technically makes someone an 'architect' is the successful completion of countless experience hours and the completion of a series of professional exams. What does not make someone is how they choose to live out their practice. All this is to say is that there are many paths one can take upon becoming an architect; furniture design, facade design, interior design, project management, material research and development, even construction. 

It is not WHAT we choose to practice as architects that makes us a value and an asset to society and the environment; but HOW we choose to go about those practices, whatever they may be, that allows our work to have a positive, sustainable impact in the world.