How relevant Indonesian architectural authenticity is?<\/p>\n
By Gunawan Tjahjono<\/p>\n
JAKARTA (JP): Architecture reveals its makers' values and
\nrepresents many aspects of a culture, but it does not always
\npresent an accurate picture of a society. We learn from history
\nthat some monumental buildings have appeared during periods of
\neconomic decline. What we see in architecture could be a certain
\ncamouflaged truth.<\/p>\n
This phenomenon has also occurred in Indonesia, if we include
\nsome of the \"lighthouse\" projects undertaken during the period of
\neconomic hardship under the Old Order. And it could probably
\nhappen again, given what we are learning about buildings
\nconstructed with high-risk loans or at the expense of the poor.<\/p>\n
However, architecture in a traditional society, whose
\ncommunity shares the same values, may reflect social reality. We
\ncan easily find in such communities some uniqueness of expression
\nand therefore credit such architecture with having authenticity.<\/p>\n
Forty-five years of architectural education in Indonesia has
\nundoubtedly produced many good architects and good buildings. Yet
\nit has not guaranteed sound professional practice or a clear
\narchitectural orientation of the nation, as very few Indonesian
\nbuildings have strong individuality. The result of the recent
\nfast pace of economic development has been that Indonesia's big
\nurban centers have been turned into the display grounds of
\narchitectural contests among multinational corporations and local
\nbusiness giants against a backdrop of slums. Various imported
\nimages and architectural styles fill the urban fringe as the
\nmarks of new taste promoted by the developers to gradually
\nreplace the former environment. Indonesian urban reality is a
\ndualistic one, in which chaos and order compete at different
\npaces. Are these contrasts a result of development policy,
\nincluding the country's architectural education curricula?<\/p>\n
As tourism surges in Indonesia, one major state policy is to
\npackage much local architectural and cultural expression for the
\nconsumption of tourists. Yet local traditions have long since had
\nthe rug pulled from under them. The government's program has, up
\nto now, only touched upon the surface of cultural activities. It
\nhas not generated the inner power of the cultural act with which
\nauthenticity can be sustained. Local cultural expression and
\narchitecture have thus become commodities.<\/p>\n
The problem with widespread consumerism in style is that the
\nglamour of the metropolis affects the rural areas, and many
\nmodern building shapes and construction methods serve as the
\nmodel for new development. The new style means new status symbols
\nto some community members. Although some areas have strong and
\nviable architectural traditions, these have gradually given way
\nto the new shapes and techniques. Some communities have even felt
\nashamed of their architectural heritage, and are embarrassed to
\ndiscuss it. This has led to the fading of some genuine
\narchitectural objects which the culture had achieved. Under such
\ncircumstances, authenticity hardly has a chance to emerge.<\/p>\n
Whose concern is this state of affairs, if not those who are
\ninvolved in affecting the expression of our built environment? It
\nis easy for a critic to blame the authorities for the failure of
\narchitectural practices or results. But we often fail to look
\ncritically at the process of architectural production. This
\nattitude is possibly a result of a poor understanding of the
\nformation of architectural traditions. It may lead to the
\noverlooking of areas of potential for the achievement of
\nauthentic architecture. It is the task of architectural education
\nto overcome the gap.<\/p>\n
Authentic houses<\/p>\n
We see that some communities, such as that in Minahasa in
\nNorth Sulawesi, still maintain and even improve their building
\ntraditions. They produce authentic houses for export. Authentic
\nhouses appear to be trendy for some urban rich. The process spurs
\non the local construction industry. Through modern machinery, the
\ncommunity creates new details and speeds up production, yet the
\nspatial order remains very much a local creation. In this way an
\narchitectural tradition is sustained. If this process can be
\napplied in other areas, then it could provide the local answer to
\nthe global challenge. Yet this phenomenon could also lead to the
\npreservation of the current condition without any breakthrough
\ninto authenticity.<\/p>\n
Authenticity, to urban sociologist Janet Abu-Lughod, is seldom
\nfound in its pure form and is created in isolation. The fantasy
\nof a totally isolated tribe can no longer hold in this fast-
\nchanging world, even in remote areas. We learn from history that
\nbuilding forms have migrated, penetrated and transformed the
\ncreative habits of human beings. We are by nature both imitative
\nand adventurous. Extreme protection from infiltration causes
\nstagnation of creative force and leads to multiplication of
\nstyle. In this regard, it is pointless to contrast tradition with
\nmodernity. The real issue lies in they way we overcome the
\ntransfusion of ideas, shapes, technology, lifestyles and
\nmechanisms which produce architecture. If we cannot achieve a
\ngood understanding of ourselves, then how can we expect to create
\nan architectural tradition which is culturally specific?<\/p>\n
Architectural practice in the globalized Indonesia has reached
\na new horizon. The architect-patron relationship plays a
\nsignificant role in shaping the built environment, and thus,
\nalso, the authenticity resultant from such a relationship.
\nArchitects are now no longer master builders who share the same
\ncultural values with their community, and who have control over
\nthe methods of production, in which craftsmen, tools, materials,
\nand rituals are integrated. Now they act as consultants and are
\nno longer an integrated part of the production system. Many
\narchitects have now joined the developers, while others have
\npursued different paths as interior designers, town planners,
\nurban designers and site planners.<\/p>\n
However, this general condition has not discouraged some
\narchitects, such as Mangunwijaya and Robi Soelarto, from making
\nstrong architectural statements. Their role has been to set new
\nlevels of achievement in certain types of building and, as such,
\nis worthier of becoming a model tradition.<\/p>\n
It is better to not only focus on the negative issues and the
\nstories of failure. We need to study the success stories as well.
\nHistorian Spiro Kostaf once said that everything built is worth
\nstudying. Discrimination against certain types of building in
\nfavor of others will prevent the architectural society from
\ngaining access to certain knowledge and will, thus, weaken its
\ncompetitive force.<\/p>\n
It appears that developing something original, the challenge
\nbequeathed by the late Professor von Romondt in his 1954 oration
\nTowards A distinctive Indonesian Architecture of the Present, has
\nyet to be met by the present generation of leading Indonesian
\narchitects. Architects, architecture educators, policy makers and
\nothers who are involved in architecture and related fields need
\nto take up this challenge together. Only in that way can we hope
\nto find a culturally specific answer to the global challenge and
\nthus contribute our own architecture to the world.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/how-relevant-indonesian-architectural-authenticity-is-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}