Archigram was an avant-garde architectural group formed in the 1960s - based

at the Architectural Association, London - that was neofuturistic, anti-heroic and proconsumerist, drawing inspiration from technology in order to create a new reality that
was solely expressed through hypothetical projects.
When Archigram formed in the early 1960, architecture was constrained not
only by post-war office practices but by a Functionalism that had become dependent
on the forms of the pre-war International Style. Against this, Archigram set not just a
political and programmatic critique of society but a utopian vision of an aesthetic that
would permeate everyday life. The radicalism was an explosive spawning of
innovations based on the dream of a technologically accelerated industrial and
consumer society. The group used subversive charm, futuristic lan, and an
unbounded delight in experimentation and technical mega-fantasies to challenge
national architectural conventions and wage a campaign against the tedium of the
International Style.
Archigram tuned into the board innovative impulses of the 1960-advanced
technology and space travel, science fiction and comics, pop culture, hallucinatory
drugs and other avant-garde sub-cultures -and fused them into a an architectural
vision that swept aside the vocabulary of classic Modernism. They saw no sense in
trying to into an architectural vision that swept aside the vocabulary of classic
Modernism. They saw no sense in trying to perpetuate the stylistic tradition of
Modernism, No point in using it to legitimate their utopian schemes.
By making a clean break with tradition, Archigram proved to be a modern avantgarde. Unlike the later Post-Modernists, they did not distance themselves
aesthetically from Modernism. In Post-Modernism, innovation came to mean simply
quoting architectural styles. The whole of architectural history could be tuned into an
ironic game and the full spectrum of styles and symbolic forms homogenised into a
single style. Archigrams critique of Modernist, on the other hand, was a splintered
gesture reflecting the patchwork of society in life.
Archigram envisaged a society in which technology would allow the harmonious
integration of all facets of life- work, consumerism, opportunities for pleasure and
happiness. Rather than fetishise technology, however, they transformed it into
fictions. Archigram was a proven avant-garde movement.
Today, when we have moved beyond the First Machine Age into an Information
Society, that faith in the power of technology to bring progress seems at best naive.
We have become aware of the threats posed by technology to both the environment
and our jobs. As technology has become more of an end in itself, it gas tended to

make people passive, dependent as individuals on the apparatus of anonymous

organisational structures. This can be seen in the massive bureaucratisation of the
working environment and of peoples private lives. The primary role of technology in
everyday culture has become questionable , as people still seem to yearn for
traditional symbols of individual and collective values. Social progress has not kept
pace with technological progress. There have been no sweeping advances to give
meaning to the new forms of communication and interaction between people, but at
best partial reforms and the kind of increased awareness we see in some were
decidedlt optimistic, buoyed by pop art and a pleasure-oriented, anti-authoritarian
counter-culture. For Archigram provocation was second nature, and their critique was
practical yet radical.
They proposed a democratic emancipated capitalism, directed towards a
humane working environment , pleasure-oriented consumption and the pursuit of
individual happiness.
In Archigrams vision of an evolving world, social progress went hand in hand
with an enthusiasm for the technology. There was no conflict between technology
and the right of every individual or society to pursue happiness. Together
consumerism and technology could help to satisfy desires and needs, giving people
the means to act on their imagination and she their own lives.
The members of Archigram were fascinated by the aesthetic potential of
technology. Their imaginations were simulated by the fantasies of science fiction and
comics.
The emphasis was on designing for urban life as an organised whole, but there
was no prevailing architectural style or principle of construction. Instead, the
complexity of life in a technology-dominated society was reflected in architectural
forms and solutions that remained symbolically ambigous.
Archigrams pluralistic forms ranged from the collaged symbolism of the
advertising world to spaceship-like cities, robot metaphors and quasi-organic urban
landscapes. These were not eclectic, decorative design elements, but rather
attempts to find symbolic forms od expression appropriate to the times, reflecting an
understanding of individual (human) and collective (social) issues. In insisting on
experimentation, the group increasingly became a kind of creative channel through
which ideas flowed and manifested themselves in an outpouring of design and
thought.
Quite apart from their innovative and visionary conception of architecture, what
makes Archigram important even today is that they revolutionised the design process

and presentation of architectural ideas: they also hat the ability ti oass ib tiger
creative inspiration to others. The sweep of their imagination allowed them to do
away with conventional working methods. They took their inspiration not only grin the
art wired but from the so-called trivial art of comics, advertising images, the
aesthetics of everyday consumer goods and space travel, futuristic urban utopias
and experimental engineering-to reiterate only the most important themes. Their aim
was not to make an original mix of diverse elements but to change architectural
thinking, to challenge accepted judgements and values in general.
Archigram developed radical, often shocking alternatives to houses , cities
and other archetypal forms of architecture. They were inspired by new developments
in science and technology, by space travel and the moon landing, by underground
culture and the Beatles, by science fiction and the new materials then coming into
use, Their historical models were the artists-architects who tried to create flexible,
organic and nomadic structures using the technology of their time, such as Bruno
Taut (Alpine Architecture) or Friedrich Kissler (Space House).