In the past, architects were a recognized guild. Each architect had a programme, style and technology of his own. The ruling class and aristocrats approached renowned architects while ordinary people could afford ordinary architects. Architecture, at least in each epoch, had a relatively fixed pattern which, according to the shape of the lot and the wealth of the land- lord would acquire elaboration, to a greater or lesser degree, and be done in a better or worse taste. Contrary to the past, the training of architects today does not happen in a construction workshop or through a master/ apprentice relationship. The traditional educational system was about apprenticeship not studentship. The apprentice would additionally learn the social techniques needed for the profession while learning about both construction and architecture. The architect of today starts his profession with academic education which is basically a technical education on a general and non-specialized level and the specialization happens in an abstract space disconnected from the society. This is the only compulsory and systematic architectural edu- cation today. The transition from a raw and abstract academic education to gaining practical and social skills lacks success- ful system and requirements. Apparently in Iran and technologically advanced societies alike, a seemingly industrial system has been developed to coordinate the relationship between architectural discipline and society. However, this system has not been able, the way it should, to facilitate the relationship in such a way that is to the benefit of both sides and would turn the process of com- missioning an architect with and his acceptance of the project to a reliable and agreeable cooperation for both sides. It is not as easy in architecture, however, as it is in other professions to have the skills needed for a pleasant relationship with the client. In nearly all professions, the traded product is already produced and is ready to be inspected and examined by the customer. The whole process for buying conventional cheap products does not take more than a couple of minutes and not more than a couple of hours or days in the case of expensive ones. Conventional products are mass-produced industrially. For expensive products, such as automobiles, there are also stand- ardization and control systems and a competitive market which provides the buyer with the information he needs and eliminated the possibility of wrong decisions. In comparison to all other products, architecture is a unique, complicated and extremely expensive product. The greatest complexity of the architectural product is that nobody can buy it as a ready-made from the mar- ket of mass production. In the case of public and governmental buildings, it is never a ready-made. The problem is not only how architects lack the education and experience needed for proving their abilities in realizing what is invisible or that they are unable to convey to the client through drawings and verbal explanations their vision of a design which could satisfy the needs of the client. The prob- lem is that the client should also be capable of performing his own duties. In fact, there should be a cooperative process in
which both sides, over a long period (six months, one year or even more) can successfully and without delay and repetition go through the different consequent phases of the design with mutual understanding. The requisite of a good client or customer is that: firstly, he should know his needs for a building with a particular function and be able to explain (either himself or through his representative) the details of his demand; secondly, he should have sufficient knowledge both concerning technical systems, the contemporary taste in architecture and the international achievements in the field of design or have the competence for transferring it to the right person; and thirdly, he should pos- sess adequate financial resources or the permission to access such resource and manage them. It is impossible for most clients or customers to enjoy all the above conditions. Therefore, it is the architect’s duty to devise the mechanisms necessary for guiding the client’s mind in a certain direction and to quantify the initial demands. There are two major reasons for what happened after the revolution and created the crisis of client’s competence today: one is the extreme commercialization of construction and the other, the increase in the number of graduates of architecture and hence, the number of consultants with or without rank- ing. More than a lack of competence on behalf of the client in
finding the proper consultant, the problem is that public and private clients gain privilege through favoring one architect over another. Among the relatives or friends of nearly all clients there is an architect. Finally, since clients possess the financial resources, nobody objects to their lack of the required competence. The problem of the client’s competence should be solved by architects them- selves. Knowing very well that money matters, the private sector will choose the better work and the better architect sooner and the governmental sector will follow some time later. In addition to proving their competence through the quality of their work, architects should help clients through believing in the principle of competition to visualize their demands in form of several con- ceptual sketches and provide them with several options. Today, the private sector is participating in architectural competitions with more substantial motives. It is only natural that due to the commercialization of construction, the clients of the private sector consider all functional, technical and aesthetic values from the view point of economy. This is the same development that has brought architecture to the domain of fashion. Instead of blaming clients for following the fashion resulting from the commercializa- tion of all relations, the architects should try to improve the level of architectural fashion.