quest for malaysian architecture: a state of identity

Yes, it is no doubt that Hijjas Kasturi experimented a lot with what Malaysian architecture should be. However I am for one that is very critical of his works. Hijjas’ works are rather overtly emblematic, and architecture should not be treated the same as sculpture. You’ll learn that much of his works resemble Malaysian motifs; keris, songkok, bamboo shoot and so on. Hence, I doubt his works are pretty much equivalent of Malaysian architecture.

Ken Yeang’s works, although an approach to resolve Malaysian climate; is rather under the connotation of sustainable architecture rather than Malaysian architecture. Nevertheless, I applaud his efforts on exporting climate sustainable architecture outwards, in essence establishing Malaysia as a perfect experimental grounds for sustainability. Also, amongst all Malaysian architects – Ken Yeang is probably the most internationally acclaimed, probably chipping in that climate architecture can equal national architecture; as what Glenn Murcutt did for Australian architecture.

@KVReminem
Your outlook is very broad among the general populace, heck especially the Malaysian public. Inviting foreign architects to design in their own country has been true for many countries; developed or developing nations alike. Examples include the Danish Jorn Utzon for Sydney Opera House, Swiss Herzog & de Meuron for few Beijing Olympic landmarks, even Le Corbusier and Louis Khan have their massive works in India and Bangladesh. Bringing in foreign architects to design landmarks, even national ones sometimes can import newer insights into the local architectural scene. Sometimes their remarks surprise local architects or builders on what can be done other than following the conventional manner. However this is a double-edged sword, while it might increase local architecture awareness, it also prompts criticism against the local context; climate and culture for example.

@tehtmc
While I agree that architectural identity is much more resilient when it has been developed for centuries, your view is rather retrospective than forward-looking. There is always opportunity to experiment on Malaysian architecture and it should be encouraged. I rather believe that architecture moves us, both emotionally and historically. Take a look at Japanese architecture for example, and look at how their vernacular architecture progressed into magnificently modern, often minimalistic homes. Theirs might have been influenced by western modernist ideals, but both vernacular Japanese and western modernist ideas has culminated into something that is architecturally distinctive Japanese architecture. Even the Japanese contemporary context of the lack of space has been factored into their architecture.

It is true that the Malaysian identity should embrace the multiracial context rather than the purely Malay influence. I think that the common spaces among Malaysians such as shophouses and housing communities should be a great experimental ground for Malaysian architectural identity. However it should not be viewed as solving the housing problem as mentioned by KVReminem. In my opinion architecture should not be viewed as single-handedly as social solutions, as it will always result in disregarding other important elements. Low-cost housing solutions in particular devaluates architecture. In fact they are mere buildings, not works of architecture.

Malaysian pavilion for the recent Shanghai Expo is obviously a blow to the reputation of Malaysian architectural scene. I doubt it that the politicians properly consulted with local architects on what should be done. While all other pavilions have shown the progressive view towards the future, Malaysia and China too has offered a poor hindsight that the past is the best we ever have done message.