the state of mind, the state of being almost, which distinguishes professionalism from business? It lies in a dual function of the professional mind: the one phase touching the attitude of the professional toward his client and the other touching his attitude toward his calling , including self and brother practitioner. As toward his client the professional must always hold himself in position to give full and frank advice removed from the slightest possibility of being affected by self interest. This necessarily prevents the professional architect from engaging in the building trades, or in any building trade; or from letting a direct contract for a client in the architect’s name; from operating similarly through a “cost-plus” contract, or even a fixed fee, as this is liable—extremely likely—to bring architects into competition with each other in point of fees. The architect’s disinterested position, that is from the standpoint of self, has been wisely safeguarded in the past. I hope that the Institute as a professional body will never fall from that high estate. Post-war conditions have not made it necessary.
As to the architect’s attitude toward his professional self: it should be one of dignity and selfrespect, so that he should not feel called upon to slink out of his clothes in the dark when he retires, shunning any waking thought of himself, but so that he should be free and glad to behold his face in the mirror as he brushes his hair in the morning. A man who considers his creative power valueless, who is willing to let any wished for or hoped for client illegitimately mother, and, through ignorance, impotence or abortion, fail to bring forth well formed the children of his brain, has no selfrespect, is not respected by others; has no sense of personal dignity and could not impart dig nity or charm even to his legitimate offspring—which are justly looked upon with derision, at least with suspicion, by others. The man who offers his advice for nothing gets just exactly what it is worth—and finds the sum or the equation balanced in the minds of his clients and of the public. If architects, as a rule, were to place a value on their creations and on their advice, giving themselves not in anticipation of favors, but only for the public weal, the
vexed problem of competitions would mainly settle itself; a very minor code would be needed. Until that status exists, however, a real code will be required—not a code, by the way, such as has been suggested, which inadvertently opens the field to competitions without sign of supervision, placing restrictions only about a “formal competition” which under such circumstances never would be instituted. Self-respect will beget a respect for others and will be treated with respect by others.
As for business, that term must be made to cover all, and only, the necessary financial and executive or administrative side of the profession, and must not include the participation of the professional man in contractural relations except as with the client. The Institute, through its schedules and codes, should in these business matters be of much fuller assistance to its members—and so incidentally to the profession, which depends upon the Institute for leadership and guidance. If the Institute sets the example and is true to itself it will make a real study of the schedule nor hesitate through fear of confusing the public or creating in its mind the impression that the architectural mind is not a unity within itself—a fact which is fairly apparent to that small section of the public which knows or cares anything about the internal workings of the profession.
In the art, the profession, the business of architecture, it is the duty of the Institute to set the standard high, to draw all adherents of that high standard to itself—to educate the public and the profession at large to an appreciation of that standard, and to shut the door upon all who drag it down. There is no conflict between the art and the business of architecture; neither should be developed at the expense of the other ; neither can be. An individual may be proficient in one branch or the other, in both, or in neither. His proficiency and his professional integrity will determine as to how each branch shall develop in the practice of that individual, while a reasonable proficiency in each branch and in all branches, and a reasonable amount of self-respect, will beget in the public mind confidence in and respect for the professional and the profession.
As to the architect’s attitude toward his professional self: it should be one of dignity and selfrespect, so that he should not feel called upon to slink out of his clothes in the dark when he retires, shunning any waking thought of himself, but so that he should be free and glad to behold his face in the mirror as he brushes his hair in the morning. A man who considers his creative power valueless, who is willing to let any wished for or hoped for client illegitimately mother, and, through ignorance, impotence or abortion, fail to bring forth well formed the children of his brain, has no selfrespect, is not respected by others; has no sense of personal dignity and could not impart dig nity or charm even to his legitimate offspring—which are justly looked upon with derision, at least with suspicion, by others. The man who offers his advice for nothing gets just exactly what it is worth—and finds the sum or the equation balanced in the minds of his clients and of the public. If architects, as a rule, were to place a value on their creations and on their advice, giving themselves not in anticipation of favors, but only for the public weal, the
vexed problem of competitions would mainly settle itself; a very minor code would be needed. Until that status exists, however, a real code will be required—not a code, by the way, such as has been suggested, which inadvertently opens the field to competitions without sign of supervision, placing restrictions only about a “formal competition” which under such circumstances never would be instituted. Self-respect will beget a respect for others and will be treated with respect by others.
As for business, that term must be made to cover all, and only, the necessary financial and executive or administrative side of the profession, and must not include the participation of the professional man in contractural relations except as with the client. The Institute, through its schedules and codes, should in these business matters be of much fuller assistance to its members—and so incidentally to the profession, which depends upon the Institute for leadership and guidance. If the Institute sets the example and is true to itself it will make a real study of the schedule nor hesitate through fear of confusing the public or creating in its mind the impression that the architectural mind is not a unity within itself—a fact which is fairly apparent to that small section of the public which knows or cares anything about the internal workings of the profession.
In the art, the profession, the business of architecture, it is the duty of the Institute to set the standard high, to draw all adherents of that high standard to itself—to educate the public and the profession at large to an appreciation of that standard, and to shut the door upon all who drag it down. There is no conflict between the art and the business of architecture; neither should be developed at the expense of the other ; neither can be. An individual may be proficient in one branch or the other, in both, or in neither. His proficiency and his professional integrity will determine as to how each branch shall develop in the practice of that individual, while a reasonable proficiency in each branch and in all branches, and a reasonable amount of self-respect, will beget in the public mind confidence in and respect for the professional and the profession.