Floor Plan Co-Determination - Architect vs. Client

Copyright... in German Urheberrecht. You don't have to look for a court, there are laws for that.

If an artist wants to indulge themselves, they usually do so between their commissions. Through their arts, they advertise themselves. A visual artist usually with their portfolio or work folder. Commissions are accepted to make a living. Whoever as an artist accepts a commission that does not fit into their "artistic concept" is not obliged to subsequently promote the product for themselves. So whoever doesn't want to, already has [it]. This architect probably currently has had enough. However, he can offer exactly what the TE is looking for... my opinion: just because the gentleman has clearly stated his stance doesn't necessarily mean that there must be animosity between TE and the architect. I couldn't read that in the initial post either... although I haven't scrolled back now.

An architect can very well implement described concepts and a written floor plan. Better than a layperson. He has studied it, he has the experience...

I don't understand the answers here, which rather push towards replacing the architect so that possibly the pantry planned by the OP with a slanted door ruins the whole kitchen, just because can't do it any better.

According to your advice, he should go to a yes-man and rubber-stamper.

If I were looking for an architect whose work I like and who still has a special standard for himself, without having to be ashamed of his work afterward, then I try to build sympathies so that my house becomes a highlight through him.

Wonderful story.
So you go to the architect with your cobbled-together floor plan and wonder why he doesn't just want to build it like that? That absolutely speaks in favor of the man.
You go to the architect with a room program and certain ideas/wishes. Then there are the development plan and the characteristics of the plot and the surroundings.
From that, the architect makes one or more designs for you. NOW you can talk to him about what you might want differently.
If you want to have your self-designed dollhouse built, you go to the developer.
I am 100% with the architect on that.

So you go to the architect with your cobbled-together floor plan and wonder why he doesn’t just want to build it like that? That absolutely speaks for the man. You go to the architect with a room program and certain ideas/wishes. Then there are the development plan and the characteristics of the property and surroundings. From that, the architect makes one or several designs for you. NOW you can discuss with him what you might imagine differently

Was it really about that? Hardly anyone would have a problem with that, right? From my understanding, it was about the fact that the esteemed architect thinks he can make decisions that are not to be discussed but simply accepted by the client (!) — without explaining the consequences, the ideas behind it, the consequences if one does it differently. The motto being: because it is advertising for me, I do it this way, regardless of how you, dear client, want and need it. From my perception, that was the point being discussed and with which some here (including me) are NOT on board with the planner. That I go to the architect, have him make proposals, explain the thoughts behind them, and then evaluate for myself whether I want to follow them (and in some cases also be convinced by the architect’s experience) or prefer it differently is, FOR ME, self-evident and the normal process when building with the architect. That’s why I go to him, to get ideas and impulses, to do things differently or better, to be pointed out my own faulty ideas, and to be offered alternative solutions. But always in dialogue and not with the hint: I am an artist, this is advertising for me, so I put something in front of you and you, dear client, have to accept it without objection — oh, and thanks for your money for my advertising. And at least that’s the impression the mentioned architect gave me. If one doesn’t want this dialogue and the experience of a (down-to-earth) architect, then the general contractor/building contractor is probably actually the better alternative, I agree with you there. But that wasn’t the point, at least that’s not how I perceived it.

Some of you should really read the thread from Jersey again. Unbelievable how much room for interpretation two sentences from the architect have, which were only paraphrased by the OP here :D

Some should really read Jersey's thread again.

Well then, let's take a look ;-)

[...] that we have to be careful not to get in each other's way with the plans: As an architect, he also has an artistic claim, and the house being built is a reference/advertisement for him. [...]
I can certainly express my ideas about what I want, but regarding, for example, the straight alignment of various walls, he would possibly want to decide

"...not get in each other's way...", "...an artistic claim...", "...he would possibly want to decide about XYZ..."

To me, this reads as if he would possibly want to DECIDE on certain aspects himself, to realize his artistic CLAIM, and not have the client get in his WAY with their plans. What do you read into it, if not what is written there? ;-)

Incredible how much room for interpretation two sentences from the architect have, which were only paraphrased by the OP here.

Isn't that a contradiction in itself? Why shouldn't there be room for interpretation through paraphrasing? Precisely that encourages it, because you don't have the exact wording, but only the "paraphrased version." From my point of view, therefore, neither incredible nor surprising, but rather quite expected. Perception is rarely objective, and communication does not take place on only one level, greetings from Friedemann Schulz von Thun...