I have noticed this type of thinking in a lot of different contexts. If you play a video game and it has a female character portrayed in a sexist manner, you say "damn developers". If you have to work in a building that has no windows you say "damn architect". If you get screwed by a retail business you yell at the schmo behind the register making minimum wage.
We don't like to think about systems, we like to think about what jerks other people are.
I think about the practice of architecture and it's systems all the time. It's a commoditized service, that doesn't scale because it's ultimately based on labor intensive piecework.
A set of architectural plans for a project that won't be built has no value. A set of architectural plans for a building that will be built has exactly the value of the fee for their preparation. There's little opportunity for reuse, and what reuse occurs tends not to add value for the client.
To compare it to software, imagine if the first code sent to the compiler was what was shipped as final product. Construction is unit and integration and usability test.
Thus the architect has three tools for selling their services: legal requirements, expertise, and bullshitting. The legal requirements create a level playing field and most architects have adequate expertise for most projects. That leaves bullshitting as an important differentiator - even more so for those willing to treat the regulatory playing field less seriously - and the seriousness of the regulatory playing field is why architects are licensed in the US.
Erio Saraann wasn't a "bullshitting architect" because he at least as good as he presented himself (same for Rudolph).
We don't like to think about systems, we like to think about what jerks other people are.