Advertising in the architectural field—
In this day and age it is not by a sign, but by their deeds, that Architects are known. Few are the survivors of that period when architectural identification was accomplished chiefly through a studio atmosphere, a languorous manner and complete abhorrence of such commercial things as money and business.
The successful Architect of to-day is as much a business man as any of the business men he serves. He is a business man plus, in that he must add to business education and sense all of the complexities of education in planning and designing, including a general knowledge of what is ordinarily termed architectural engineering.
Only a little study of present-day requirements of architectural practice is sufficient to demonstrate that the architectural profession is not likely to be overcrowded within the scope of present vision. A country as large as this can produce some men who will meet the qualifications of a sound definition of the word Architect, but not too many.
But this, of course, does not mean that there will ever be lacking a considerable number of men who call themselves Architects, who know enough about the subject to pass a superficial examination in a superficial way, and who will manage to exist on the fringe of the legitimate profession.
That there is a distinction between Architects and this latter class is perfectly evident to most advertisers who have had practical experience in the architectural field; but it is not so clear to the novitiates in architectural advertising. They are apt to confuse the field of architecture with a number of other fields that in reality are not related to it. To the extent that they are thus misled, they are susceptible to numerous varieties of exploitation by publishers whose aim is to envelop the architectural field in such a haze that otherwise obvious facts will not be ascertainable. In such cases one of the common methods is to misrepresent the number of architectural offices and by exaggeration to endeavor to couple with the Architects of the United States a small army of near-Architects and wouldbe Architects.
It is obvious that there can be no community of interest between publications designed for Architects and those designed for the hangers-on and camp followers of the profession.
Advertising Talks—XX
by
THE AMERICAN ARCHITECT.
In this day and age it is not by a sign, but by their deeds, that Architects are known. Few are the survivors of that period when architectural identification was accomplished chiefly through a studio atmosphere, a languorous manner and complete abhorrence of such commercial things as money and business.
The successful Architect of to-day is as much a business man as any of the business men he serves. He is a business man plus, in that he must add to business education and sense all of the complexities of education in planning and designing, including a general knowledge of what is ordinarily termed architectural engineering.
Only a little study of present-day requirements of architectural practice is sufficient to demonstrate that the architectural profession is not likely to be overcrowded within the scope of present vision. A country as large as this can produce some men who will meet the qualifications of a sound definition of the word Architect, but not too many.
But this, of course, does not mean that there will ever be lacking a considerable number of men who call themselves Architects, who know enough about the subject to pass a superficial examination in a superficial way, and who will manage to exist on the fringe of the legitimate profession.
That there is a distinction between Architects and this latter class is perfectly evident to most advertisers who have had practical experience in the architectural field; but it is not so clear to the novitiates in architectural advertising. They are apt to confuse the field of architecture with a number of other fields that in reality are not related to it. To the extent that they are thus misled, they are susceptible to numerous varieties of exploitation by publishers whose aim is to envelop the architectural field in such a haze that otherwise obvious facts will not be ascertainable. In such cases one of the common methods is to misrepresent the number of architectural offices and by exaggeration to endeavor to couple with the Architects of the United States a small army of near-Architects and wouldbe Architects.
It is obvious that there can be no community of interest between publications designed for Architects and those designed for the hangers-on and camp followers of the profession.
Advertising Talks—XX
by
THE AMERICAN ARCHITECT.