Towards a new spirit in local architecture

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.