Our office is given the privilege of running ‘natural artifice’ next year’s conference.

At the outset, it is important for me to note that for next year’s conference, there will be three people involved from our office, and we have a sort of averaging of the ‘height’ with ego if you can see what I mean.

Firstly, David Neustein, who is a recent graduate now working with us, with very little experience in the practice of architecture, but a lot of experience in the practice of ‘talking about’ architecture; and even more experience in the practice of ‘talking’ about ‘talking’ about architecture which for me can sometimes be annoying but also very rewarding. Always annoyingly rewardingly interesting.

Secondly, there is Andrew Scott, the youngest in age of six Associates in our office who has helped me in our office for over 8 years, four or five of the projects he has assisted on having won significant awards much due to his efforts. His interest in our craft surpasses mine at times and this is also very annoying.

In fact the whole thing is very annoying because I am the boss and yet I know least yet I have to be talking the most; so somehow, through osmosis, due to my lack of time, I will need to absorb what is also in the minds of these two collaborators in our office’s role next year; or maybe not. Lets see.

And I should note just briefly, that David Neustein observed that our office, without making it do this consciously, works in this way to not place hierarchy in the thinking of some things that are best left without hierarchy themselves, where every thing is equally important. design is one such thing directing a conference is another.

There is a blog name behind me for you to see. The idea, and it was not mine, I think this time it was David’s and Andrew helped put it together.

We want your input on who one of the speakers should be for next year. So we have opened up an opportunity for you through this ‘artificial thing’ in our first play of artifice; David thought he would like some names because we only have 2000 on our short list; and this is not near enough to Peter Weller’s world population count yesterday.

And we, like Tom Bloxham’s Athenian citizen’s can be the citizens who will place judgement from afar on your choice, Like the judges on a television show; the play on Voltaire’s ‘idol’ worship.

We will blame you if your speaker is hopeless and we will take all the credit if you have found us a genius.

So, we desire the names of people who are smart but still not too busy or conceited so that they can talk freely about real issues of practice, not just how good they are. I suppose that’s the first thing we learnt this year, that its nicer to hear about what people are thinking, than to see what they are doing; after all, we can find the pictures of their work in books and on the computer but we do not get the presence of their soul unless they are here, even if it is by live computer link.

I think that big ideas are frightening and require much daring but for many years I have respected Delacroix’s comment that there is no beauty without daring. So we must care for at least listening to big ideas.

And we forget that big ideas are only as big as the world and this week we discovered again how small the world is compared to the universe.

And even as a small thing spinning madly around its parent the sun, ‘it’ will tell us what we can do, ‘It’ will tell us if we will have speakers at a conference, for instance. And then we will say no! through technology our artificial construct, and we can ignore the message. This is the game of nature and artifice.

Sometimes, we forget that we form part of the very ‘nature’ that is this earth. Our chemistry relates more to the volcano that it does to the aeroplanes. Which side are we on? The side that made us or the side that we made? Why take sides?

Artifice in this context can be seen to pre-date us as a thing that has been always present with nature. The formations of birds in the sky are one form of an artificial thing, their nests another.

And our cities, in this timeless universe, are but ephemeral things like that fleeting moment of the birds; or a passing cloud; the techtonic plates, constantly changing. Constantly being replaced by new generations; we probably place a high importance on youth because of this; and youth is a simulacrum of that which is present already; there is no doubt. Ghosts will replace ghosts everywhere on earth.

What, then is the artifice? Can the artificial hold beauty through nature? Can it develop our sensory and spiritual engagement with the universe? Is the artificial a part of nature?

That which is nature and that which is artificial were always an essential part of our condition.

Their joining is a thing of natural beauty.

A natural artifice.

You will see. Next year.