XIII. plans for and supervise work in another.- Practice by corporations under registration laws. The question of "doing business" in Dangers which characterize the agency of the architect.-Specific and implied agencies, - Employment of architect a contract of per- sonal employment.-Right of client to termi- nate.-Architect cannot assign contract.—In- terests of contractor.-Right of contractor to oppose change of architect and to refuse to proceed under new architect. The provisions of the contract will control.-Effect of Article 9 of the General Conditions of the Standard Contract.-Obligations of architect to con- tractor. Rights of architect on use of plans THE ARCHITECT'S CHAPTER I. THE BUSINESS SIDE OF ARCHITECTURE. Practice of profession on business basis practical and consistent with its standing as a fine art.-Effect of modern business conditions on the profession.-Importance of being definite. Architecture has long been regarded and still is properly classified as one of the fine arts. Every element of tradition in the profession has served to confirm this classification and to emphasize, in the mind of the architect, the fact that the profession is primarily an art. All this is, of course, fundamentally sound, and I have no quarrel with it in any particular, except in so far as it is sought to regard the profession as an art solely and to disregard the everyday prosaic business elements entering into the practice of it. During recent years especially, it has become increasingly apparent that architecture has a business side, as well as an artistic side, and that the architect who would protect his client's interests and his own rights, and avoid serious embarrassment and loss, must recognize the fact that this is so. In speaking of the business side of the profession I refer primarily to the business and legal elements entering into the relations of the architect, client and contractor, as distinguished from matters of interior office organization and direction. Architects, as a class, unquestionably regard the artistic element as paramount, and it is right that they should do so. The difficulty is that very many -the great majority, I fear-persist in viewing their profession as an art alone, and seem to have a feeling that in some way directly or indirectly they are untrue to that art, if they deign to practice it on a basis of business efficiency and organization. For years I have been preaching to my architect clients the doctrine that this point of view is false, that the profession can be followed with due regard to its standing as a fine art, and without cheapening its standing as such in any way, and that at the same time, due regard may be given to the rules of business organization and conduct. In other words, I am heretical enough to believe that an architect may be a great artist in the truest sense of that term and at the same time a man possessed of sound business sense and judgment, and that he may organize his office on business principles and conduct it on a basis of business efficiency, and coincidently develop work of the highest artistic and architectural excellence. In fact, I know that this is so, because some of my very good friends and clients in the profession—men whose work is nationally recognized as deserving of the warmest praise-are also keen business men, who deliberately make use of their business judgment and ability for the express purpose of safeguarding their own interests in the practice of their profession, and the interests of the clients whom they represent. If one consider the elements which enter into the practice of architecture today, he must realize that the drafting of specifications, the securing of estimates, and the drafting and operation of the building contract, while part and parcel of the primary purpose to achieve an artistic result, have, nevertheless, each of them a purely business side. All of these phases of the work, the supervision of the job, the arranging with the client for the payment of the fee due, and like items entering into the construction of every work undertaken and carried out, are fundamentally business propositions. Art and business are not so diametrically and hopelessly opposed as many would have us believe. They may well go hand in hand in the conception and execution of work at once meritorious from the point of view of the most fastidious artistic critic, and at the same time satisfactory and successful, in that it has been carried forward to completion on a sound business basis and in accordance with such business principles as are necessary to protect architect, client, and contractor alike. There can be no question of the benefit which must accrue to the architectural profession by a more general adoption by its members of business organization and principles. The architect of today owes it, not only to himself but to his client as well, to familiarize himself with the danger points in the practice of his profession and with the general precautions which he should observe to avoid them. It cannot be logically maintained that a man is any the less an artist because, before undertaking his work, he arrives at a clear understanding with his client as to what his compensation is to be, or as to the basis upon which he is to act. Similarly, he does not lose any of his artistic ability because he sees to it that his office is so organized that the business aspects of the contract, specifications, estimates and the like, and the engineering phases of the work, are passed upon by men trained to appreciate and check them, and that as the work progresses the sums becoming due to the contractor, the accuracy of the items embodied in the certificates, the payments to sub-contractors, and all of the other similar items entering into the usual building operation, are checked by an employee with a reasonable working understanding of accountancy. One of the most successful and artistic architects whom I know makes it his regular practice to assume a sort of guardianship over the interests of his clients, in their dealings with contractors, far beyond the point that the ethics of the profession require that he do this. In repeated instances he has called upon me for advice upon matters involving solely the client's interests, not coming within his province as architect as his duties are laid down in the canons of ethics or usually considered, and which he might quite conscientiously and properly have passed along to the client for attention and determination. He has done all this and has not passed the responsibility on to others as he might have done, because he has realized that, by reason of his special knowledge of the situation and facts involved and of the work done, and of the attitude of the contractor and the general psychology of the situation, he has been in a position to give valuable help to the client and to aid him in avoiding unpleasant and expensive complications. This architect has paid for such legal services from his own pocket. Nevertheless, and from personal observation, I am convinced that the practice which he has thus followed has been a very great asset to him in his relations with his clients, an element of prime importance in building up the reputation which his office enjoys, and a sound and profitable investment from every point of view. If I were asked to sum up in one word the greatest need of the architect of today in the successful practice of his profession-aside, of course, from artistic and engineering training and ability-I should unhesitatingly answer "definiteness." More troubles brought into my office by architect clients result from a lack of definiteness than from any twelve other |