|The tension was palpable|
To kick the evening off Deyan reminded us to vote - little did I know that the MP for the area (Simon Hughes) who had been the MP there for the last 32 years was to be unseated.
Anyway back to the talk - Farshid spoke well about the end (perhaps) of the various '-isms' my interpretation of the idea of her book was was that the Architect as an author was history and they are now more like a ring leader and the 'Starchitect' figure is dead, we've moved from solo to group practice.
Farshid believes that technology has made a fundamental change to the way architects work both as a result of using computers and also by the sharing that takes place over the internet.
There's also an idea that globalisation has changed the way nationhood applies, an example was made of the way that the bicycle does not seem to belong to one country and continues to evolve.
Farshid spoke about projects she'd been involved with including Libraries, Schools, Offices and particularly the Cleveland Museum of Contemporary Art.
There was also talk about how buildings signify and can be subverted and the feeling of 'people' that all airports (for example) look and feel the same
What made the evening slightly tense was a rebuttal of much of what Farshiod had proposed by Historian of Architecture Charles Jencks -there seemed to a real tension between their two conceptions of Style and when Jencks chose to describe Iranian born Moussavi as an Iranian Architect, she felt that she had to reject this label and a concept of nationality that presented her in this way
Perhaps surpringly for someone who is not knowledgeable about the particulars of the debate I did feel involved and I was very pleased to hear E H Gombrich being referenced.