what's in a name?
that which we call [someone who plans and designs buildings]
by any other name...wouldn't be an architect unless they've been licensed.
Right?
Naturally, architects want to protect the title of "architect" from being tossed around too lightly. But, putting aside the legality associated with only licensed architects being permitted to call themselves architects for a moment...are there others who deserve to be called architects? We've seen multiple examples of entire societies being generated by not architects. Do we diminish their work because they aren't technically architects? Or are we jealous because someone else has stepped into our territory?
By (one) definition, "architect: a person who is responsible for inventing or realizing a particular idea or project."
What about, instead of an architect for a building, we think of architects of space: the "everyday environment" and how we all play a part in shaping it. Could we not call the residents of Kowloon architects of their own space? They designed and realized, not just places to lay their heads at night, but an entire ecosystem. They aren't projects so much as the results of a necessity. And they are striking. They did something that "architects" did not, just as architects can do many things that they cannot do. I think that instead of asserting dominance over a field, we should learn from these examples. What was successful about them? What was not? How could an architect's involvement have affected these areas, for the better or worse?
Kowloon Walled City
by any other name...wouldn't be an architect unless they've been licensed.
Right?
Naturally, architects want to protect the title of "architect" from being tossed around too lightly. But, putting aside the legality associated with only licensed architects being permitted to call themselves architects for a moment...are there others who deserve to be called architects? We've seen multiple examples of entire societies being generated by not architects. Do we diminish their work because they aren't technically architects? Or are we jealous because someone else has stepped into our territory?
By (one) definition, "architect: a person who is responsible for inventing or realizing a particular idea or project."
What about, instead of an architect for a building, we think of architects of space: the "everyday environment" and how we all play a part in shaping it. Could we not call the residents of Kowloon architects of their own space? They designed and realized, not just places to lay their heads at night, but an entire ecosystem. They aren't projects so much as the results of a necessity. And they are striking. They did something that "architects" did not, just as architects can do many things that they cannot do. I think that instead of asserting dominance over a field, we should learn from these examples. What was successful about them? What was not? How could an architect's involvement have affected these areas, for the better or worse?
Kowloon Walled City
I think it goes more into protecting our own profession from those "posers" that think slapping four walls together is architecture -- and in turn do not understand the main job we have is to protect the health and welfare of those we build for. If that building falls down and harms someone, or worse, those who are unlicensed but still refer to themselves as architects hurt the reputation of all architects who actually worked hard enough to gain the ability to legally call themselves architects. Counterpoint -- those architects we studied did not use or need licenses, so is it all just a way for some organization to make money off of us?
ReplyDelete