1. One who designs and supervises the construction of
buildings or other large structures.
2. One that
plans or devises: a country considered to be the chief
architect of war in the Middle East.
[Latin architectus, from Greek arkhitekt
n : arkhi-, archi-
+ tektn, builder; see teks- in
Indo-European roots.]
The American
Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by
Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin
Company. All rights reserved.
architect [ˈɑːkɪˌtɛkt] n
1. (Fine Arts & Visual Arts / Architecture)
(Business / Professions) a person qualified to design buildings and to
superintend their erection
2. (Fine Arts & Visual Arts / Architecture)
(Business / Professions) a person similarly qualified in another form of
construction a naval architect
3. any planner or creator the
architect of the expedition
[from French architecte, from Latin architectus,
from Greek arkhitektōn director of works, from archi- + tektōn workman; related to tekhnē
art, skill]
Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged ©
HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003
ThesaurusLegend: Synonyms Related Words Antonyms
Noun
1. architect - someone who creates
plans to be used in making something (such as buildings)
designer
creator - a person who grows or makes or invents things
landscape architect, landscape gardener, landscaper,
landscapist - someone who arranges features of the landscape or garden attractively
Ithiel Town, Town - United States architect who was noted
for his design and construction of truss bridges (1784-1844)
Based on WordNet 3.0, Farlex clipart collection. © 2003-2012
Princeton University, Farlex Inc.
architect
noun
1. designer, planner, draughtsman, master builder. Employ an architect to make sure the plans comply with
regulations.
2. creator, father, shaper, engineer, author, maker,
designer, founder, deviser, planner, inventor, contriver, originator, prime
mover, instigator, initiator the country's chief architect of economic
reform
Quotations
"architect: one who drafts a plan of your house, and plans a draft of your
money" [Ambrose Bierce The Devil's Dictionary]
Collins Thesaurus of the English Language – Complete and
Unabridged 2nd Edition. 2002 © HarperCollins Publishers 1995, 2002
Translations
Select a language:
architect
n architect [ˈaːkitekt]
a person who designs buildings etc.
n architecture [-tʃə]
the art of designing buildings He's
studying architecture; modern architecture.
adj archiˈtectural
Kernerman English
Multilingual Dictionary © 2006-2010 K Dictionaries Ltd.
architect →
Multilingual Translator © HarperCollins Publishers 2009
One of the main objects of the Architects Act of Queensland
is: imposing obligations on persons about the practice of architecture
by establishing a Board of Architects to undertake this task along with the
associated roles it has been allocated.
The question is: if the Board of Architects of Queensland is
controlling ‘architects,’ is it controlling one who ‘plans, devises and
creates’ things other than buildings – like the architect of war or economic
reform, as exampled above? Why not? Where in the Act does it define an
architect in relation to building or any related activity? A search of the Act
reveals two uses of the word ‘building’ in the context of ‘building and
construction’ – on page 48, section 82, parts (e) and (f). This section relates
to the membership of the Board. One lawyer and one construction contractor
‘with at least 10 years experience in the building and construction industry’
shall be members of the Board. Even so, the further question is raised: what is
‘building industry’? Does this encompass theoretical ponderings or actual
building design, documentation and supervision? The official CPD form asks for
activities to be scheduled under four titles: ‘Design; Documentation; Project
Mgmt.; Practice Mgmt.’ This suggests building activity to those involved in
this industry, but why can this list not refer to the design, documentation,
and management of a war, or an economy? How can this scheduling embody
teaching, tutoring, research, as it seeks to do, if it is supposedly so
intimately associated with ‘normal’ architectural office practice? What about
theorising and writing that might not be too different an activity to the
efforts of generals and bankers? Is it a useful set of headings?
The definitions in the Act seek to clarify the meaning of
‘architect’ and ‘architectural services.’ In the typical circular
obscurification of dictionaries, the Act defines a practicing architect as one
who carries out, or is responsible for the carrying out of, architectural
services. It then notes that architectural services means services about
architecture ordinarily provided by an architect. An architect means a
person registered as an architect under this Act. The Act defines a
practicing architect as one who carries out. . . etc.
Strangely the Board
also has the task of controlling non-practicing architects. The Board must
be satisfied that the applicant will not carry out, or be responsible for the
carrying out of, architectural services. This is a tricky one to think
through. If one seeks registration as a non-practicing architect and pays the
annual fee for this privilege - apparently to use the label ‘architect’ - the
obligation placed on this person is to never practice. Gosh, why pay to be
policed to do nothing? One would be similarly regulated if one practiced
without being registered - for no fee. The outcome would be much the same.
Indeed, what stops one being an ‘architect’ in the ‘plan, devise, create’ sense
that everyday language is allowed to engage us in? Perhaps one might call
oneself a ‘creative’ architect in this sense, and qualify the word as
‘landscape architect’ does? Why not? ‘Building’ does not have any relationship
with the definition of architect, only with two of those appointed to be
members of the Board. So what is an architect?
This all begs a
question: with our language using the word ‘architect’ more frequently in a
variety of ways with the sense of one who ‘plans, devises and creates,’ has the
time come for the Act to be more explicit, or for it to be abandoned? The word
‘architecture’ has similarly become a fashionable way to describe things that
have a specific organization or inherent structure, e.g. the architecture of a
computer or of a corporation/society - even of desire and doom. Why? A humble
object - the body - can have an ‘architecture’ - and an ‘architect’? Gosh,
Federal budgets have ‘chief architects,’ suggesting a hierarchy of
architectural involvement. How does the Board decide when to draw the line on
the use of the word ‘architect’? If I chose to label myself a ‘hair architect’
(hairdresser) or similar (one has), why is the Board so careless about this?
What is this latent understanding that buildings are - have to be - involved?
The definition in the Act sees practice as being ‘about architecture’ but this
word has lost any direct or necessary link to building. Indeed, the specific
reference to building is becoming the odd one out in our current usage, turning
it into the anachronism that architects, as traditionally understood, seem to
have become. Why not drop everything? If the Board sees one of its roles as
‘protecting the public,’ then surely it has the obligation to clarify the use
of the word ‘architect’ and ‘architecture’ and insist on this? Its’ proclaimed
role in educating would seem to mean that it should be doing more about the
different use of these words in modern language.
But no. New usage
is ignored and things are managed in much the same manner as they were one
hundred years ago when an architect was an architect, and architecture had to
do with building. While it might not have been clear just how this relationship
could be adequately described to everyone’s satisfaction, (see Pevsner’s and
Ruskin’s struggles), architecture in Victorian times meant something to do with
a building or buildings. An architect was one who was involved in the, yes,
design, documentation, project management and practice management of
architecture. Today, things are far more complex, not only in language, but
also within the practice of architecture itself and its associated fields that
are accommodating an ever-broadening range of specific roles within the
varieties of experience in offices and elsewhere.
The board makes
more complications for itself by trying to include under the term ‘architect,’
those who teach, tutor, research, manage staff, act in legal cases, advise
corporations and governments, and more, as well as controlling those who do get
involved in aspects of what we traditionally understand as practice - and those
who don’t. It seeks to treat all architects as one, irrespective of the task,
skill or experience involved – a novice graduate; a skilled, experienced
practitioner; a college lecturer in architecture. It is a troublesome task
because each, apart from the non-practicing group, is asked to select a CPD
programme, (without the Board giving accreditation to any provider or specific
guidance to the ‘applicant’), as might be best suited to the tasks and roles
undertaken by the separate individuals, with everything being assessed by the Board
to allow it to offer the registration applied for.
This diversity is
so great that it seems almost impossible to manage with one standard chart and
a formal set of broad guidelines. Who will overview this? What happens if one
fails to impress the adjudicator? Do it all again - and again? Punishment? Is
there a right answer? Can there ever be? Deregistration? Well, that’s a big
one. Will the Board deny one the right to work - to earn a living with one’s
training and experience, just because of - what? Where are the processes made
explicit? How are the requirements for this diversity defined? Just what is
right when one is asked to make one’s own assessments? What is the point of
checking any involvement when each set of criteria to guide choices will be
different? Consider the mature architect and the recently registered youth; the
theoretical researcher and the specification writer; the professor and the
office project co-ordinator.
The whole concept
looks very ill-considered and naïve. It seems to lack true substance. Think of
the academic who seeks registration under the experience and activity of, say,
lecturing, also being the same person who is able to give seminars to other
members of the profession to allow them to gain hours for their CPD chart.
There is something strange and irrational here - out of control;
self-referencing in the ‘I’ll show you mine if you show me yours’ sense: ‘I’ll
teach/test you if you, or your mates, test/teach me.’
It would seem that
to make sense of the idea, the whole concept of CPD should either be dropped or
be taken over by the Board to take true responsibility for the profession and
education by carefully organising, managing and promoting the sessions for
required registration for the diversity that is this profession. Without such
rigour, the whole affair is likely to fall into the language game that the word
‘architect’ seems to find itself in. Who will know what, when, where or how
about any activity when it seeks to cover such a scope of interest? Who will be
the architect of this strategy? Who has been?
But the Architects Act is far more forgiving in its
guidelines for renewal registration than this blind drive for CPD recording
suggests. Why has it been interpreted in such a restricted manner? Look at the
detail. The renewal section, Division 4, Section 16, part (2) spells out:
The requirements (for continuing registration) may include
requirements about the following:
(a)
the nature, extent and period of practice of
architecture by the applicant;
(b)
the nature and extent of continuing professional
development to be undertaken by the applicant;
(c)
the nature and extent of research, study or teaching,
relating to architecture, to be undertaken the applicant;
(d)
the nature and extent of administrative work, relating
to architecture, to be performed the applicant.
This is followed by part (3) which strangely reads like a
summary out of context:
The requirements are satisfied by complying with the
board’s continuing registration requirements for architecture.
It is pointed out that these are available on the board’s
‘website on the internet’ (where else?): www.boaq.qld.gov.au
Part (3) is indeed a puzzle, because it suddenly states,
quiet bluntly, what the specific requirements for registration are, in spite of
the four items listed in part (2) as (a), (b), (c), and (d). A re-reading of
the published ‘requirements that may be included,’ seems to indicate that an
emphasis has been placed on (b), with the demand that 20 hours of specific
types of CPD involvement be formally recorded, with some suggestion that an
academic involvement, as noted in (c), would be acceptable too, but without
defining just how this might be measured. The requirements noted as (a) and (d)
do not seem to have been given any recognition in the guidelines published on
the internet.
The relevance and significance of the ‘nature, extent and
period of practice’ is easy to understand. Its importance is self-evident. Just
why this is not identified as having any role in the renewal of registration is
an enigma. It is as much a puzzle as item (d) is. A quick check of the
dictionary at the end of the Act gives no definition for ‘administrative work.’
What is this? Office filing? The guidelines do not make the concept any
clearer, or give it any particular relevance. By ignoring both (a) and (d),
large schisms are created in the requirements and processes spelt out for
registration renewal that a simple review makes so obvious. ‘Architect’ is a
term given to a very broad range of skills and experience within the building
and construction industry and outside of it, and to a variety of meanings in
numerous different contexts in our ordinary use of language. Seeking to manage
registration renewal in such a limited, mechanistic, rational and ill-defined
manner - by merely trying to measure CPD activity - can only create problems.
Some will be linguistic matters, but others will occur because of the inherent
specialisation of the interpretation of the Architects Act and the selectively
narrow approach it has defined as being relevant to the renewal of
registration. The Board of Architects should do better than this. After all, it
is the body that should know who or what is an architect. It should be able to
express itself unambiguously on this matter if it is to remain relevant and
this must recognise the miscellany that architects and architecture have come
to include - or perhaps it should go?
"Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can
be counted counts." (Sign hanging in Einstein's office at Princeton)
8 JULY 2014
See also:
and
