Role of the Architect

The role of the architect is ambiguous, as Giancarlo De Carlo elaborates on in "Architecture's Public". The term has been applied, he writes, to many positions throughout history from something as straightforward as head brick-layer, to something as powerful as, well, God (definitely not a problematic or hubristic line of thought). Today it seems the title can be loosely handed out to many different problem-solving job positions (see Solutions Architect, Data Architect, IT Architect, etc.) except actual architecture positions, of which you need several years of specialized education, thousands of hours of experience, and half a dozen rigorous exam passes to call yourself an Architect for the first time. Yes, for the next several years, most of us newly graduated masters of architecture degree holders will still be calling ourselves "Junior Project Designers" or "Designer II" or what have you. 

It is indeed an honorable profession and credential to have achieved all of that necessary preparation to design beautiful buildings that protect the health, safety and welfare of the public. But if there's any confusion as to why the public may be confused about us, maybe we need to take a look at how we present ourselves. We have business strategy consultants called Architects and functional architects called Emerging Professionals. The credibility of the name is still there, but perhaps the profession has let it become a bit diluted for the sake of distinguishing level of expertise. There are other aspects that influence public perception of course, but one could argue that the perception of any role starts at the name.