How relevant Indonesian architectural authenticity is?
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.