Mike,
In trying to "reposition" the image or role of the architect in the public's mind, I think it would be a useful exercise to understand how the public sees architects now.
You start your message by juxtaposing the architectural profession with that of Doctors, Lawyers, Engineers, and Accountants, all of which are very pragmatic professions that deal with the pragmatic concerns of the public they serve. Then you spend the rest of your message talking about the artistic and ethereal nature of architecture and design. In one fell swoop you have identified the "problem" with the public's image of architects.
The public, even the most sophisticated public, are mostly concerned with the more pragmatic concerns of their lives and of society. I don't think anyone of them would argue with the fact that architects have an artistic sensibility. But the overwhelming majority of them are more concerned with the practical nature of life. Where we as architects fall short in this "debate" with the public is in our ability to show how the profession of architecture can respond to their needs, not just their wants, or lesser still, their philosophies.
I do not see in your list of subcommittees, any listing for the economics of architecture (value vs effort), or the practical benefits of good, thoughtful design, such as comes from sustainable design (maybe in Emerging Knowledge, though not all practical benefits come from emerging knowledge). These are all more pragmatic concerns that I believe the public is concerned with, much as can be shown for Doctors, Lawyers, Engineers, and Accountants.
In you musings regarding how we define ourselves, keep in mind that our definition of ourselves as architects must not veer too far from the public's perception, or what is the point?
Thanks,
-------------------------------------------
Wilburn Crater AIA
Project Architect
Novus / BEW Architects
Asheville, NC