"Now we're all someone's bitch in the system"

The History of Architecture presents a role-call of iconic master builders and designers, seen very much as artists, provocateurs and experimentalists who were unafraid to challenge conventional thinking. With an aspiration to write themselves into the next chapter of the story, generations of young architects starting out in their careers have considered that this maverick spirit continues to define the profession. But does it in reality?

Some would say that there are characters that stand out as examples in our modern age, but how much can anyone be considered nonconformist and outside the rules of the game, when working for a property industry driven by investment funding that utilises ‘creative ideas’ as a front and a means to an end?

If the avant-garde can be defined as “challenging established norms and pushing boundaries” in what guise do we think this exists in architecture anymore? When much of our building is based upon an aesthetically-driven, expressive form-making, is there a danger that it has become too easy for this to masquerade as providing something ‘alternative’, whilst it simply reinforces a formulaic status quo?

Today specialisation and siloed thinking abound. Pioneering progressive clients have all but disappeared and a tyranny of being ‘contextual’ limits ambition. With the discipline becoming safe and hemmed in by a need to seek permission through process, politeness and fitting in, has British architecture long lost its rebellious edge?

How do we reclaim architectural heterogeneity and resist blandness? Are the obstacles we face less to do with appearance and more to do with the de-risking of the finance/insurance industries, or the regulatory systems that makes things safe? Is it at all possible to reintroduce a spirit of self-determinism and self-expression through buildings? A greater freedom of form could open-up possibilities of a more DIY approach to architecture, greater recycling and reuse, a broader material palate, a more resourceful ‘built to budget’, ‘build with what is available’ and a greater ‘needs must’ approach to building?

Around the world there are many examples of this from traditional or indigenous ‘architecture without architects’ and the likes of Alejandro Aravena, to the more unusual works of Hunterwasser, Dominic "Cano" Espinosa, Earthship Biotecture and Marcel Raymaeker.

Not everything in the built environment needs to be a spectacle, but equally must it all be so tame? The weird and wonderful can bring a unique identity and joy to places, as global tourism demonstrates. So, where do we place the mad, batshit ideas in the architectural canon?

Speakers:

TBC

Tickets:

NOT ON SALE YET