The term "Architect" is protected by law for a VERY good reason. This term is reserved for people who have proceeded through 7 years of qualification and experience and are skilled in areas from design, through to contractual law. it guarantees a certain level of competence and experience, after that it is left to the practitioners legacy of completed projects. If the term were not protected every Plan Drawer and surveyor would call themselves architectsâ€¦and what would that do for the standard of the built environment? The ARB quite rightly takes a very dim view of anyone using this term without being a paid up member, even people who have done the 7 years and forgotten to pay their fees are fair game in court.
Complaining about snobbery and autocratic behaviour amongst architects is very commendable but do remember that the greatest architects are invariably the most self obsessed, possessed, autocratic, pretentious and contemptuous kind of people. They also happen to create the greatest interiors ever seen, such as
FLW, Johnston Wax, Corb, Ronchamps, Fosters Great Court
And before youâ€™re a flurrying at your keyboard yes they didnâ€™t all do a seven-year course and no they werenâ€™t all ARB members. They satisfied all of the requirements of the day to have the title bestowed upon them and if the requirements included a 7-year course then you can assume they would have done that as wellâ€¦. I feel somewhat predisposed to hostility when others bemoan the people who are prepared to do whatâ€™s required to be an architect. We have a right to be protective of all that we have worked hard for.
I do not therefore feel that â€œinterior architectsâ€ should use the phrase architect in their job title, it is misleading in your case, even a discussion board full of architects donâ€™t know what you do, what hope has the layperson? I know that IT Hardware professionals use the term â€œsystem architectâ€ but no-one ever hires them to refurbish a building.