quest for malaysian architecture: architects are initiators

Reply to MinSyn at http://archimalaya.blogspot.com/ (quoted text below)
previous article quest for malaysian architecture: make beautiful architecture instead

I think my quest is gaining some momentum from the very interesting discussion with my contemporaries. I encourage more emerging architecture students to join in the discussion; with the fine objective of achieving a greater awareness of architecture in Malaysia.

from what you have written, you are more or less accepted the fact that architecture is the product of the current society, limited by certain boundaries set by different variables; whether if it’s politics, bureaucracy and economy. Like art, I think architecture should be the vehicle to challenge the ways of how we live, not merely accepting the fact that we produce what people demands. There is a certain reason architects and builders are educated with different approach of thinking, mindset if you will. if you look at history, great architects are often initiators, bringing new ideas to the drawing table rather than choosing whatever there is in a pattern book.

your definition of architecture relies mostly by the idea that architecture must be built, existing in reality. but what we all doing in the course of an architect’s five year education deal in the realm of alternate reality – a hypothetical world if you will. Etienne Louis Boullee’s Bibliotheque du Roi and Newton Cenotaph for example, manifested architecture not in reality, but in paper. He pursued the beauty of greatness in architecture;

“the image of greatness satisfies us in every aspect because our soul, eager to extend its joys, seems ready to embrace the Universe” – Etienne Louis Boullee

The Cenotaph, an immense sphere inverting day into night by puncturing holes inside the sphere like a starry sky.

While in night, a singular ball of fire illuminates the sphere like a sun in still. The Cenotaph, exemplified the spirit of Age of Enlightenment, “Light represents Newton, lighting the knowledge of Mankind.” – Francisco Martinez

part of what we all currently doing; sketching, making models, drawings, discussing and experimenting; that is architecture; not copying and pasting the previous building plans in CAD for a new proposal. that is the paradigm that we should focus on changing in Malaysian mainstream architectural scene.

of course, there is always failure in experimenting on how we should live, but part of that is at least shaping towards a greater world for everyone. the celebrated Peter Eisenman’s House VI as such, might be hinting that overdependence of formalism can ruin one person’s daily life.

the bedroom for example; has an opening through that forced the couple to sleep in different beds.

though the work fails as a house; it is a successful architecture, successful in being a work of art by highlighting the idea of how “function follows art” – Adelyn Perez

there is a small unnoticeable button in overpushing architecture into self destructing into smithereens by forces outside the architectural scene. if you do well remember, the beehive Roman insula that are built in extreme density and cheap materials; inadvertently killed numerous lives in the Great Fire of Rome. While I do not deny the fact that we should embrace currently available technology or materials; but let me remind you that we deal in the realm of humanities rather than cost and practicality.

“Architecture is a product of the mind, the fruit of spiritual and intellectual activity and precedes construction.” – Etienne Louis Boullee

architecture should be the reason we don’t live in beehive all-the-same box cells. humans have an appreciation of beauty and delight; and in my humble opinion, architecture should ultimately move us.

Yang Yang

—

Architecture since the beginning of time, by far extent has been the product of the condition of economy, politics and social of its time. It is always the by-product of the chemistry of all these elements in place in its time. We call it the pinball?… Rather than thinking architecture as the engine that could change the world, i think it is, in many case, determined and manipulated by its surrounding. Our past great architecture, all encompass economical significance within and thus without the factor of money, there wouldn’t be architecture because architecture on our conscious mindset is largely conceptualised by historical definition.

Drawing up plans, authority stamping of project submission etc might not be fancy in the eyes of the visionaries, but it is what it is today, for at least it reflect our attitude and the position of architecture in this age.

The Roman insula for instance has been the must-know architectural artifact now although in fact it was considered the not-so-fancy apartment birdhive then, very much like the birdhive public housing we have today. They are both cheap, practical, and made of the most appropriate materials and technology possesed. The effect of utilization and passage of time have made the insula a great story-teller of its time.

Architecture is far wider than the boundary of conscious human moral and ethical judgement…I put it that way.

Comment by MinSyn