The History of Not Standing Still

To start off, I need to admit that I am a history buff.  I love reading about and finding out things of and from the past.  I also know that history is and always will be a contentious issue.  It always seems that history is fluid and changes constantly depending on the person or source.  But as much as I love history, I don't hold it in reverence. This is pretty much the focus of this article: how history is important to human growth but not the end result.  The reason for writing this article is for me to articulate my view of history, and also to help some of my students who are writing about issues that might be related to how history affects societies, culture and about moving forward.

There is this saying "The journey is more important than the destination".  This could not be more apt to describe the concept of history.  There are a lot of definitions of history; there are many a book that look at the concept of history.  There have been movements that attempt to reject history i.e. the Futurists.  There have been parties that revere anything historical and would fight to keep it intact.  Herein lies the problem.  A lot of people view history as the 'finished article'; and nothing can or should be changed.  This included architecture, fashion, culture, beliefs etc.  Let me explain what I mean by this by using architecture as an example.  For a lot of people, a certain type of architecture or building becomes synonymous with their identity.  A historical building for example.  This building is usually a relic of past cultures and is often considered a heritage.  Most of the people will feel that this historical building represents them and should always stay the same.  Any changes made to this architectural type will be considered as some form of heresy.  This group of people will feel that this building, built and designed by their ancestors to fulfill very specific functions, is the finished article.  This means to say, all buildings thereafter should follow that same ‘template’ regardless of any extenuating circumstances.  This is evident in Malaysia, where we constantly feel the need to borrow and copy from past architectures. 

Some time ago, I gave a lecture on the negative aspects of revering history.  The over-reverence of history resulted in cultures and societies becoming counter-productive and stagnating.  History became a crutch; as they viewed what they did as the height of their achievement and thus could grow no more.  And that, is my main contention with how people view history.  If we think we have reached the top of the mountain, then there is nowhere else to go but down.  If we view the achievements of our ancestors as the pinnacle of our culture, then we are also doomed to forever stand still.  Ironically, this stems from humanity’s fear of change and evolution.  There is this need in us to ‘contain’ change, and sometimes to stop it from happening.  I suppose this is linked to our baser survival instincts. 

The idea of learning from history DOES NOT mean we should follow and copy it.  If we view what happened in the past as something that has brought us to where we are now, and NOT the end of the journey, then the future and its possibilities are limitless.  This is due to our ability to imagine and create.  Imagination and creativity is what separates us from other animals.  The power to imagine what we want and to shape it into reality has what made us the dominant species on this planet.  The virtues also made it possible for us to shape the environment to our needs.  The idea of evolution is that of something that is constantly changing and adapting for the better.  The idea of standing still, as to how most people view history, goes against everything natural.  Nature evolves.  Cultures evolve.  Religions evolve.  Cities evolve.  Constantly trying to hold on to the past will disable us from adapting to new challenges; and thus develop new ideas.

Being progressive does not mean abandoning your roots or history.  It is these roots and history that has enabled us to branch out this far into human evolution.  Progressive thinking has enabled us to solve the myriad of issues that has plagued humanity since the dawn of time.  Without progressive thinking, man would not have had the thought and courage to leave the cave; or would it have enabled us to discover fire and the so many other technological advancements since then.

So as designers, we should be at the forefront of progressive thinking; finding the new technologies and ways to solve problems old and new.  The boundaries have been set by history, and it is only natural for us to break them.  We can look backwards and forwards at the same time.  But we need not anchor ourselves to our past.

History is there for reference, not for reverence.

Nooks and Crannies Become Architecture: A Reflection

On the evening of the 7th of October 2012, the esteemed Sir Peter Cook conducted a lecture at the Double Tree, Hilton Kuala Lumpur.  Entitled Nooks and Crannies become Architecture, Sir Peter shared his history as a architect as well as his sources of inspiration throughout his career.  The talk was visually arresting, due to Sir Peter's generosity in sharing his collection of photographs and his design works; and his anecdotal delivery of the content.

To the uninitiated, Sir Peter Cook founded the design group Archigram with Warren Chalk, Ron Herron, David Greene, Michael Webb and Dennis Crompton.  Archigram were interested in hypothetical projects which drew inspirations from technology and consumerism.  They were also largely influenced by the Futurist ideology promoted by Antonio Sant'Elia in the 1910's - 1920's.  This lecture covered a lot of the ideas and designs Sir Peter did with Archigram and the reasoning behind them.  For more of Archigram,  you can go to www.archigram.net to view their original sketches and works, or go look them up at wikipedia.  If you are interested to read the Futurist manifesto in English, you can go to http://masi.cscs.lsa.umich.edu/~crshalizi/T4PM/futurist-manifesto.html.

Anyway, back to Sir Peter Cook's lecture.  It has taken me some time to post this, for the reason that I wanted some time to think about the things I saw and heard during the lecture.  Of course, not everything stuck with me, nor do I claim to understand all the things that were presented.  This reflection is purely personal and the issues that resonated with me will be discussed here.  Again, this reflection is NOT a review of the entire lecture, but bits and bobs of things that stuck out for me.

One of the first things that really caught my attention wasn't so much the content of the lecture but of the person giving the lecture.  It is truly amazing to see Sir Peter Cook, after decades of being in architecture and design, talk so passionately about his works and works of others.  This passion could be seen in both his commissioned works and works which he did as a form of intellectual exercises.  His enthusiasm for anything design appears undiminished and his energy could be felt by those sitting in the crowd.  I guess it requires a great amount of love and dedication to architecture and design to still be so heavily involved in it after so many years.  His enthusiasm was clear to all when you see him talk so openly and candidly about the slides that were shown; so to his generosity in sharing his ideas and opinions.  His ability to draw ideas and inspiration from diverse and eclectic sources (one of which was Valparaiso in Chile; the other key one was nature) is also worth mentioning as you can see how these sources inform his works.  It gave me a vague picture to as how his mind works - which is akin to a web whereby he will pull in various ideas from all sorts of places and weave something together for his designs.

In terms of the content of the lecture, the one underlining idea that stuck with me is his embrace of technology.  Technology played an important part during Sir Peter's time in Archigram and continues to be one of the factors that drive his design today.  It is clear that he has a high regard for how technology has shaped us as humans and how it has shaped the urbanscape; and I feel that technology is what makes us who we are.  We should attempt to understand the technology that surrounds us, and drive it away because of ignorance or pride; which is something a lot of people do due to the fear of the new and unknown, and the denial of change.  People are afraid of change, and technology is the symbol of change.  Whether technology affects architecture or our daily life, our need to understand it and shape is is what makes us evolve.  The search for new and innovative ways to do things is what keeps us moving forward.  If we refuse and decide to just stand still, we would go extinct, like so many species who are unable to adapt.  Anyway, back to Sir Peter's works: most of his conceptual and theoretical works (which I refer to as his intellectual exercises) who a certain amount of what technology CAN be, either left on its own, or being pushed to their boundaries by humanity.  This is certainly an interesting point for me due to the fact that I feel a lot of technology available to us IS NOT truly understood, and therefore underutilised - especially in the design field - either in terms of conceptualisation or construction.

And despite his embrace of technology, he also has a great reverence for nature.  As he mentioned in his lecture, this could be due to his upbringing in England.  His recent works, especially the conceptual ones, appear to show how nature is more powerful than any built environment.  One of the slides that stand out in may mind was the one where he shows a progression of nature taking over a landscape.  As much as humans have the ability to control his/her surroundings and environment, nature always finds a way back.  This is important, not only due to the recent fervour for designs to be environmentally friendly, but because understanding Nature's nature is truly the only way to create a built environment that is a harmonious balance between man-made and natural.  There are a lot of resources today that talk about Green and environmental friendly design so I won't go too much into it here - but just to share how Sir Peter Cook looks at nature; at nature's idiosyncratic beauty, at its power and potential.

Another key theme that I picked up during the lecture was the theme of eclecticism.  From the slide presentation, I saw a diverse array of places, people and architecture.  Some quite quaint, some expressive and colourful and some that did not work so well.  But all of this gave a lot of soul to Sir Peter's lecture and it made me realise that diversity is truly the key.  I mentioned in my previous post of plurality and diversity in Malaysian architecture; and I would like to re-emphasise it here again.  The strength of design and architecture is diversity.  Similar to nature, diversity ensures growth and survival.  In this globalised world that we live in today, the opportunity to adopt and adapt diversity into our designs is virtually limitless.  Design after all, must be a representation of people and culture, and with today's global culture, it is only fitting that our designs must exhibit diversity and eclecticism.  The lecture made me realise that the way forward for Malaysian architecture is the path of plurality and diversity.  We cannot just accept and embrace ONE architectural identity but to embrace and exhibit an eclectic approach to design.  I know this idea is still rather vague and I hope to be able to crystallise it somewhere in the near future, but for those who are talking about Malaysian architectural identity, the lecture made me realise that architecture can no longer have a singular worldview (as what the Modernist approach was) but it needs to be made up of our eclectic surroundings and culture.

There were a lot more themes that were discussed in the lecture, which I won't really get into - perhaps some of my students who attended the lecture can also voice out what they took away from the talk.  But to wrap it up, the lecture was indeed long, but it was inspirational and thought provoking.

My Future of Malaysian Architecture

A couple of weeks ago, I set my group of dissertation students a small assignment: to write a short essay of what they think or wanted the future of Malaysian architecture and design would be like.  I have already read some of these essays on their blogs and I think it is only fair that I too write a short essay on what my vision of the future to be.  This is strictly wishful thinking of course, and might even be rather utopian.

And the first key ideal would be Pluralism.  In a country so diverse it is impossible to have a singular identity.  Strictly apolitical, the 1 Malaysia idea is not applicable to architecture and design.  Not in Malaysia or anywhere else in the world for that matter.  Instead of trying to formulate one particular 'look' or identity and attempt to force it into every and any circumstance or situation; each region, state and community should have their own architectural and design identity.  If we could have region based architecture, then that would be my utopian vision of Malaysia.  And as most of Malaysia has commonalities, these underlying themes or concepts can be integrated into the different regional designs.  These commonalities include shared history, language etc.  So imagine if you could, each region in Malaysia having their own architectural identity i.e. Penang (as I am from there) would embrace its island geography and built buildings that respond to that.  Architecture in KL could respond to its status as a cosmopolitan city and the centre of the country.  These are two very simple examples to be sure, and other states have their own identity that should be integrated into the architecture.  The criteria for each region should consists of its geography and topography, the lifestyle and beliefs of the community, the economy and of course the idea of sustainability (environmentally and economically).  I am sure these criteria need further studying as I am sure there are others that are as pertinent.

Again, identity here is not limited to the history of the state, but should be a reflection of contemporary culture of that community.  All architecture should be contemporary.  All architecture should be responding to the needs and changes of the times.  It should not follow archaic laws nor should it bow down to history (something I feel that our local architecture does too often - in its extremes).   So if we create architecture FOR the people of a specific region, then we should have created an architectural identity indigenous to that place.  After all, architecture built for KL will not work if it is transplanted to say, Sarawak.

From reading this, it is fair to conclude that I am a big believer in Kenneth Frampton's idea of Cultural Regionalism; and this is what Malaysian architecture (or world architecture even) should subscribe to.  This essay is a bit short, as most of the things mentioned here are really at the top of my head, but it is my hope that it will generate greater discussion and debate; and to eventually formulate something that we can all aim to achieve in terms of a greater Malaysian architectural identity.

A Long Overdue Update

As you can see from my previous post; it has been almost two years that I have written anything on this blog.  And an update is long overdue.  To my students that are reading this, I promise to update this blog as often as you update yours.  I will try to include relevant articles on issues that affect interior design and architecture.

Two years ago, my group of dissertation students inspired me to start this blog, and I am hoping that this CURRENT group of students will motivate me to keep it going.  I have always been inspired by my students and a lot of things I do outside of the office is actually comes from the things my students have done.  You, my students, are the reason I am still teaching and enjoying every moment of it.  So it is my hope that this blog will also inspire some of you to achieve something spectacular.

As most of you know, I welcome feedback and criticism; and it is my hope that you be as critical to my writings as I would yours.  Sharing ideas, thoughts and insights is really the only way to move forward.  And this is also the reason for re-starting this blog.

So to all my students, here is the start of phase 2 of my blogging industry.  There will be more to come and I hope I can say the same for your blogs too.