Towards a new spirit in local architecture

By Amir Sidharta

JAKARTA (JP): Almost ten years ago Udo Kultermann, professor of architecture at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri, wrote, in his essay "Architecture in Southeast Asia 2: Indonesia" (Mimar 21, July-Sept.,1986), that "the architectural profession operates in large offices" and that "nearly 70 percent of all building complexes are government commissions". Today, approaching the 50th year of Indonesia's independence, it can be said that there are many small architectural firms and that these handle many projects for the private sector.

The works of the 19 architects and architectural teams of the Young Indonesian Architects Forum, displayed in the Fine Art and Architecture exhibition at the Historical Diorama Hall at the National Monument, reflect the current development of Indonesian architecture. The works exhibited are not large-scale, but are products of firms which are rather small. Not required to conform to conservative corporate imagery or to present nationalistic architectural forms, the architects have been able to explore more freely, without the burden of either corporate or Indonesian "culture".

The architects have also been able to look into diverse architectural design paradigms for solving problems of geography, sociology, economics, technology and also culture. Architecture is concerned with all of these. Moreover, they have all been influenced, directly or indirectly, by world architecture. If they did not receive their professional education abroad or from foreign-educated instructors, they have worked with foreign partners, or have seen and read about the developments in foreign architecture in magazines, books, television programs and films. The influences that have shaped these young architects are diverse, and the process of acculturation is becoming more and more rapid due to the ever-more-rapid flow of information.

Apart from being diverse, their works can be seen as being in process. They struggle in their searches for and explorations of form as they respond to requirements which are, in a broad sense of the term, functional. At a glance, their works seem modern and stripped of any reference to "culture".

Culture

Many question whether the works reflect an Indonesian cultural identity. Are they required to reflect an Indonesian cultural identity by presenting something that is considered synonymous with Indonesian culture? Is it not true that if they were to use forms considered synonymous with an Indonesian cultural identity, their work would become superficial? Eko Budihardjo, in the anthology Menuju Arsitektur Indonesia (Towards an Indonesian architecture) says that "the form follows function epithet needs to be modified to be form follows culture". However, we need to remember that culture itself consists of many elements, among them art forms, including architecture.

The human need for identity has caused identity to become the end, the goal towards which efforts to reflect culture are directed. However, actual identity comes after the end. According to Yuswadi Saliya, in his "Notes on Architectural Identity in the Cultural Context" (Mimar 19, Jan.-March, 1986): "To be somebody, should not begin by having an identity, identity will come by itself after, not before, someone is doing or becoming somebody." He adds: "Architecture should first and foremost be considered part of the man who makes and uses it, while identity, to my mind, is just its by-product."

A "which came first, the chicken or the egg?" debate has emerged with regard to modern Indonesian architecture. Is it Indonesian culture that forms modern Indonesian architecture, or is modern Indonesian architecture merely a part of Indonesian culture? Does Indonesian culture have to be presented in Indonesian architecture, or does Indonesian architecture reflect the identity of Indonesian culture? Which represents what, or which came first, architecture or culture?

This confusion seems to be the result of a confusion about the meaning of culture itself. Is culture something that is definite and permanent, or is it something that changes and develops? Too often, we think of Indonesian culture as already fixed and definite. Meanwhile, Indonesian culture is still being formed, and will continue to change.

For example, Prof. Ir. V. R. van Romondt said in his speech upon becoming a professor at the Bandung Institute of Technology in 1954: "At the beginning of every civilization there are no examples. Each culture has to create its own forms."

F. Silaban, a pioneer of Indonesian architecture and construction, says in Menuju Arsitektur Indonesia: "There is no need to search for the form of Indonesian architecture, because the Indonesian people itself is still in the process of formation. What is clear is that Indonesian architecture must be modern and tropical in character."

Architecture emerges from the way of life of a society. From architecture and the other forms of expression of a society, we can see the development of the civilization and culture of that society.

Harmonious

The modern works that emerge from many Indonesian architects today are forms of human efforts to create built environments that are effective in and harmonious with their natural environments. Therefore, the works can be considered to be part of Modern Indonesian Culture.

Since Independence, we have realized that unity does not have to mean uniformity. This we express in the national slogan "Diverse, but ultimately one" (Bhinneka Tunggal Ika). This is definitely key in the current frame of reference about modern Indonesian architecture. As the geographical, sociological, economical, and cultural conditions in each region of Indonesia are different, our architecture will always be diverse and different. A uniformity of architectural form is not necessary and, actually, should never be achieved. Unity should be seen in the of richness of the diversity. We should take pride in modern Indonesian architecture for its diversity, as we take pride in the diversity of traditional Indonesian architecture.

The works of architecture that are shown in the Fine Arts and Architecture exhibition are diverse and may seem not to lay much emphasis on achieving cultural identity, let alone the identity of a single and definite Indonesian culture. The architects are striving to provide answers to the fundamental problems of creating harmonious environments to dwell in. Cultural identity will emerge later from the architectural forms that make up these answers.

Perhaps this time Fine Arts and Architecture at the National Monument can only be regarded as a partial reflection of our architectural development. The exhibited works present a liberal architectural search. The works seem increasingly diverse, and many of them refer to a critical regionalist approach of recent regional schools "whose primary aim is to reflect and serve the limited constituencies in which they are grounded," as clarified by Kenneth Frampton in Modern Architecture.

He adds: "Among other factors contributing to the emergence of a regionalism of this order is not only a certain prosperity but also some kind of anti-centrist consensus, an aspiration at least to some form of cultural, economic and political independence." Independence of creativity has an important role in the creative process of the architects whose works appear in the exhibition. They, like other Indonesian architects, have become more and more independent in their endeavors.

Through the freedom and independence of Indonesian architects, as a whole, we can look forward to the emergence of a new spirit in Indonesian architecture, which in turn should reflect that freedom and independence. That is what we hope for, now and in the future.

Amir Sidharta is the curator of the architectural section of the Fine Arts and Architecture exhibition at the Historical Diorama Hall beneath the National Monument, which runs until June 27.