The Computational Designer debate—and would Le Corbusier be allowed today?

I often see posts on LinkedIn complaining that too many people call themselves nowadays “computational designers” or "environmental designers" because they show Grasshopper spaghetti scripts or color-coded simulation results on building geometry with Ladybug Tools. I understand the points being raised. There is more to being a computational designer, or any role tied to BIM, sustainability, or digital technology enthusiast, than flashy titles, Grasshopper screenshots, and AI-generated images. 

But to me, the question is different. At the core, we are all humans wanting to grow and realize our potential in life. Shouldn’t our focus be on supporting that journey, rather than policing titles? Are we creating a society that helps people achieve their full potential? 

Too often, I also see people with LinkedIn headlines with a combination of the words: Director, Board Member, Top Voice, Strategic, Leader, and Public Speaker. This signals privilege, while the achievements and contributions to society may have been there in the past, but are currently unknown or not shown.

To make another point, consider the architectural profession: 

In some countries, let’s say “X” country, there are too many architects, thus, we will make it hard to graduate, hard to obtain the title “architect” through further examinations. Those who succeed will be expected to work with low salaries and limited opportunities. Globally, academia adds its own layers of fixation on requirements for career promotion.

Meanwhile, we elevate a few figures, "archistars", while making it hard for younger generations to make achievements in life. Yet history reminds us that some of the greatest architects, like Le Corbusier, Frank Lloyd Wright, and Tadao Ando, did not come from formal architectural education. Some of them also designed buildings at a young age. By today’s standards, since they were not formally trained, they should not have been allowed to work in offices, to design, and certainly not recognized as the "true designer and architect" of a building, but hidden in the shadow of another architect or of a big company. 

We would not have their contributions if they were stopped, simply because they did not fulfill all the criteria of the profession. The built environment would have lost a significant part of its history without them. They did not stop because someone told them “you can’t call yourself an architect”, and if professional requirements had held them back, some of the greatest works of architecture would never have come to light.

Architecture is full of theory and history of buildings, but little is written about the history of how great architects landed their first client or commission. The latter is known by a few, and usually passed through anecdotal evidence. You may be lucky to hear some of these anecdotes from your history of architecture professor. Many of those stories began with opportunities that might never have materialized without ambition and a bit of "fake it till you make it." Perhaps they also knew the right people?

That is why I believe we need to create a supportive society that enables people to thrive, to make it equitable, fair, and just. If you want to become an architect, pursue that path. If you’re exploring computational design, follow that journey. Let’s create the conditions for people to grow, achieve, and add richness to our shared future.