<p>I started this thread on the architecture board. I thought it could be more beneficial to hear from both sides.</p>
<p>So far I have heard that architecture is considered a proffession and that you dont have to go to school for GD to be a designer. I also thought of going to school for the bfa then an March but a poster responded that it may put me in debt to do so.</p>
<p>Can someone from this side tell weigh GD and Arch?</p>
<p>I personally think graphic design is a profession, and that the best designers are well-educated. I know many, many highly successful graphic designers (and architects, too!) and all of them are well-educated. </p>
<p>If you love 3-dimensional work and long-term, collaborative projects (virtually always on a team, most projects take months if not years) and lots of detail work, consider architecture. If you like 2-d work, typography, and lots of detail work (usually shorter/faster paced projects, but not always–there are long-term graphic projects too)–then go for graphics. I’d say, what do you love? If both, what would you be better suited to doing?</p>
<p>I think the poster defined “proffession” along the lines of licensed proffesional. Like, anyone can call themselves a designer - though not a skilled one - but you have to be licensed to be an architect.</p>
<p>It’s so hard to say. If I could I would want do both. the extent of my knowledge in graphic design is much greater than it is in architecture though. I know what a humanist axis/rationalist axis, aperture, leading/kerning/tracking, stroke modulation, and generally the anatomy of a type face and I know how to do a little book binding. And though my knowledge of graphic desing is greater, I also think my love of 3-d design is a bit greater (sculpture, industrial design, architecture) and I also have interests in package design. I just thought it would be easier to go into architecture after a bfa than it would be to go into an MFA after a 5 year Barch.</p>