How relevant Indonesian architectural authenticity is?

By Gunawan Tjahjono

JAKARTA (JP): Architecture reveals its makers' values and represents many aspects of a culture, but it does not always present an accurate picture of a society. We learn from history that some monumental buildings have appeared during periods of economic decline. What we see in architecture could be a certain camouflaged truth.

This phenomenon has also occurred in Indonesia, if we include some of the "lighthouse" projects undertaken during the period of economic hardship under the Old Order. And it could probably happen again, given what we are learning about buildings constructed with high-risk loans or at the expense of the poor.

However, architecture in a traditional society, whose community shares the same values, may reflect social reality. We can easily find in such communities some uniqueness of expression and therefore credit such architecture with having authenticity.

Forty-five years of architectural education in Indonesia has undoubtedly produced many good architects and good buildings. Yet it has not guaranteed sound professional practice or a clear architectural orientation of the nation, as very few Indonesian buildings have strong individuality. The result of the recent fast pace of economic development has been that Indonesia's big urban centers have been turned into the display grounds of architectural contests among multinational corporations and local business giants against a backdrop of slums. Various imported images and architectural styles fill the urban fringe as the marks of new taste promoted by the developers to gradually replace the former environment. Indonesian urban reality is a dualistic one, in which chaos and order compete at different paces. Are these contrasts a result of development policy, including the country's architectural education curricula?

As tourism surges in Indonesia, one major state policy is to package much local architectural and cultural expression for the consumption of tourists. Yet local traditions have long since had the rug pulled from under them. The government's program has, up to now, only touched upon the surface of cultural activities. It has not generated the inner power of the cultural act with which authenticity can be sustained. Local cultural expression and architecture have thus become commodities.

The problem with widespread consumerism in style is that the glamour of the metropolis affects the rural areas, and many modern building shapes and construction methods serve as the model for new development. The new style means new status symbols to some community members. Although some areas have strong and viable architectural traditions, these have gradually given way to the new shapes and techniques. Some communities have even felt ashamed of their architectural heritage, and are embarrassed to discuss it. This has led to the fading of some genuine architectural objects which the culture had achieved. Under such circumstances, authenticity hardly has a chance to emerge.

Whose concern is this state of affairs, if not those who are involved in affecting the expression of our built environment? It is easy for a critic to blame the authorities for the failure of architectural practices or results. But we often fail to look critically at the process of architectural production. This attitude is possibly a result of a poor understanding of the formation of architectural traditions. It may lead to the overlooking of areas of potential for the achievement of authentic architecture. It is the task of architectural education to overcome the gap.

Authentic houses

We see that some communities, such as that in Minahasa in North Sulawesi, still maintain and even improve their building traditions. They produce authentic houses for export. Authentic houses appear to be trendy for some urban rich. The process spurs on the local construction industry. Through modern machinery, the community creates new details and speeds up production, yet the spatial order remains very much a local creation. In this way an architectural tradition is sustained. If this process can be applied in other areas, then it could provide the local answer to the global challenge. Yet this phenomenon could also lead to the preservation of the current condition without any breakthrough into authenticity.

Authenticity, to urban sociologist Janet Abu-Lughod, is seldom found in its pure form and is created in isolation. The fantasy of a totally isolated tribe can no longer hold in this fast- changing world, even in remote areas. We learn from history that building forms have migrated, penetrated and transformed the creative habits of human beings. We are by nature both imitative and adventurous. Extreme protection from infiltration causes stagnation of creative force and leads to multiplication of style. In this regard, it is pointless to contrast tradition with modernity. The real issue lies in they way we overcome the transfusion of ideas, shapes, technology, lifestyles and mechanisms which produce architecture. If we cannot achieve a good understanding of ourselves, then how can we expect to create an architectural tradition which is culturally specific?

Architectural practice in the globalized Indonesia has reached a new horizon. The architect-patron relationship plays a significant role in shaping the built environment, and thus, also, the authenticity resultant from such a relationship. Architects are now no longer master builders who share the same cultural values with their community, and who have control over the methods of production, in which craftsmen, tools, materials, and rituals are integrated. Now they act as consultants and are no longer an integrated part of the production system. Many architects have now joined the developers, while others have pursued different paths as interior designers, town planners, urban designers and site planners.

However, this general condition has not discouraged some architects, such as Mangunwijaya and Robi Soelarto, from making strong architectural statements. Their role has been to set new levels of achievement in certain types of building and, as such, is worthier of becoming a model tradition.

It is better to not only focus on the negative issues and the stories of failure. We need to study the success stories as well. Historian Spiro Kostaf once said that everything built is worth studying. Discrimination against certain types of building in favor of others will prevent the architectural society from gaining access to certain knowledge and will, thus, weaken its competitive force.

It appears that developing something original, the challenge bequeathed by the late Professor von Romondt in his 1954 oration Towards A distinctive Indonesian Architecture of the Present, has yet to be met by the present generation of leading Indonesian architects. Architects, architecture educators, policy makers and others who are involved in architecture and related fields need to take up this challenge together. Only in that way can we hope to find a culturally specific answer to the global challenge and thus contribute our own architecture to the world.