License can bind and it can liberate. A fantasy of disciplinary finitude, a professional architectural license bestows liability and autonomy in equal measure. In an abstract sense, to take license is to disregard established limits, to undermine the very idea of a closed and comprehensive disciplinarity that sustains licensure.
If licentiousness is derived from license, how do architects leverage this polemical condition to balance - or not - responsibility and invention? How does architecture's periphery change when license ceases to be a telos/terminus? What kind of authorities, criteria, and protocols emerge to determine whether an architect is fit to practice?
