Understanding the position of the architect in relation to society has always attracted scholarly attention, and it appears that this position has been formulated in different ways across historical periods. The aim of the present study is to reread the transformation of the architect’s position within the architectural tradition of Western Europe, from antiquity to the Renaissance. This rereading is based on three main axes: vision, knowledge, and responsibility. Through these three components, the study seeks to show how epistemological and methodological transformations in architectural thought led to changes in the role, function, and professional identity of the architect. Accordingly, the main research question is: How has the socio-professional position of the architect, in the transition from the pre-Renaissance to the post-Renaissance period, been formulated in historical and theoretical architectural texts on the basis of the three components of vision, knowledge, and responsibility? In this study, scholarly texts and architectural treatises are examined through a qualitative method and a directed content analysis approach. The analytical framework is formed around the three components of vision, knowledge, and responsibility, while the findings are organized under three interrelated pillars: thought, representation, and craft. This structure makes it possible to examine the architect not merely as a builder or craftsman, but as a figure whose status was shaped by changing forms of thought, systems of knowledge, modes of representation, and practical responsibilities within society. The findings indicate that before the Renaissance, a sacred mode of thought, combined with theoretical and technical knowledge, defined the architect’s responsibility in relation to the realization of the common good and collective wisdom. In this framework, the relationship between meaning, function, and construction was regarded as self-evident. Architecture was not understood only as a technical or individual act, but as part of a broader moral, social, and symbolic order. The architect’s role was therefore connected to the preservation and realization of this order through building. Within such a context, representation was mainly symbolic and was based on intuitive quantities, inherited proportional systems, and meanings shared by the community. Architectural representation did not yet depend primarily on standardized visual procedures, precise mathematical projection, or measurable systems of presentation. In the Renaissance, this intellectual horizon gradually gave way to a scientific mode of thought based on abstract knowledge and deductive methods. Beauty came to be interpreted as the result of individual rational judgment and the application of proportional rules. As a consequence, the role of the architect was increasingly associated with the ability to think, calculate, represent, and organize the building process through rational and measurable means. The architect was no longer defined only through practical experience or workshop-based knowledge, but also through theoretical understanding, visual reasoning, and intellectual judgment. This transformation also changed the mode of architectural presentation. Representation shifted from symbolic expression toward realistic depiction based on number, perspective, and standard scale. These tools made it possible for architectural ideas to become more clearly documented, communicated, and measured. In other words, the drawing and the representational system became instruments through which the architect could clarify, control, and transmit design intentions before construction. Thus, representation became one of the main means through which the architect’s professional authority was established. At the level of craft, a significant transformation can also be observed. The figure of the all-round craftsman, who integrated design and construction through direct practical knowledge, gradually gave way to the figure of the architect-designer. This new figure guided the process of building through drawings, calculation, proportion, and planning. This shift did not mean the disappearance of technical knowledge; rather, it indicated the reorganization of technical knowledge within a more abstract, intellectual, and representational framework. The architect’s authority was therefore redefined: it was no longer based solely on manual skill or direct control of construction, but also on the capacity to conceptualize, represent, and coordinate the building process. In conclusion, the study shows that the transformation of vision and knowledge redefined the architect’s social responsibility and professional mode of practice. The change in the architect’s position from the pre-Renaissance to the Renaissance was not merely the result of stylistic developments or technical innovations. Rather, it reflected a deeper transformation in the relationship between thought, representation, and craft. Through this transformation, the architect’s socio-professional status was reformulated as a role situated between intellectual judgment, technical knowledge, and responsibility toward society.