Part 1 by Gabriella Galea

Contemporary Architectural Discourse

Architecture, Capitalism and Criticality Kant’s book on the Critique of Pure Reason was published in 1781. His primary aim was to determine the limits and scope of pure reason - what reason alone can determine without the help from the other senses. He compares knowledge we gain from experience (posteriori) to universal knowledge (priori) that we, as humans, have independent of experience. Kant suggests that “much of what we consider to be reality is shaped by the perceived mind. The mind, according to Kant, does not passively receive information provided by the senses. Rather it actively shapes and makes sense of that information.” (Spark Notes, 2015) Kant is challenging society to search for the real truth. Each and every one of us looks at things from a particular perspective which is influenced by our past experiences. In order to critically look at things, we must separate what we are perceiving from what is actually true - in other words, we must be critical, first and foremost, towards ourselves. Max Horkheimer describes critical theory as a theory that liberates ”human beings from the circumstances that enslave them.” (Wikipedia, 2014) “The Frankfurt School critical theorists—concerned with elaborating Marx’s intimations of ‘superstructure’ and analyzing the workings of culture within capitalism—were interested in how art, as a cultural production, operates as a system that can support or thwart, depending on its deployment, the workings of capitalism.” However, in the 1980-90s, critical theory evolved into a broader critique of presentation, “often aligned with poststructuralism—but addressed the same issue of how cultural production subsumes and deflects capitalism.” (Wikipedia, 2014) It is interesting to see how time plays a factor in critically looking at architecture. It seems to me that as time goes by, we tend to glorify our past - especially architecture. Although many aspects of a certain building or urban development could be criticised, the fact that it belonged to our ancestors, and that it is part of our heritage - be it on a global scale or a more national scale - we romanticise it and fail to look at it critically at times. Perhaps this is what Kant was talking about. Does our past affect the way we look at things? Do we tend to glorify a past in order to move forward? Should we be more critical towards our architecture and our surroundings? Are we less critical of a city such as Palmanova, but harshly critical when it comes to something more contemporary such as New York City? As humans, we look at history as something that defines us, that makes us who we are. I believe that something contemporary, something present and something we have control over, makes us more critical, whereas, when viewing something which has stood the test of time, even if it does not work as well, we tend to be more lenient in its regard. Is it perhaps, the fact that New York is a product of capitalism, and we consider ourselves part of it, that we are more ready to criticise? Palmanova inspired the design of prisons - something which we would normally not associate with an urban development, yet, do we look at it critically? Is power and control a blessing or a curse? In the Parc de la Villette, the architect did not want to design the function, but allow the people to create their own functions within a given space.

Contemporary Architectural Discourse

Plan

Palmanova

This ability of change and a more personal take on an urban space is, perhaps, what makes the place such a success. “The Parc de la Villette boasts activities that engage all people of all ages and cultural backgrounds. The park is a contemporary melting pot of cultural expression where local artists and musicians produce exhibits and performances.” (Wikipedia, 2015) In a place like New Delhi, the lack of control, or total anarchy, has produced something that might look beautiful and interesting, but might have structural issues and concerns. Here, the architect is the user. In Palmanova, you get the other extreme - people feel controlled and there is no place for freedom of expression through architecture. I believe that a certain element of control is always beneficial to any society, in any aspect, even in architecture. However, society must be allowed to express itself within a set of parameters or guidelines. Architecture, at any point in time, is a product of a culture. When comparing the House of Parliament in Bucharest - one of the most expensive buildings ever built - to the Pyramids in Egypt, we criticise the parliament building for its expensive architecture but neglect to criticise the pyramids for their slavery. Were they not both built to show some sort of power in their own context? Architecture and capitalism deals further with the relationship between the economy and architectural design. Cultural and economic issues enter the argument, so it is interesting to look at how the current financial crises has affected architecture. Peggy Deamer says, “it seemed that what I knew from Critical Theory didn’t totally explain what I understood was happening to architecture after 9/11, which is to say, architecture was simultaneously being asked to be

Contemporary Architectural Discourse

more relevant - at last we were no longer merely debating blob versus box.” (Deamer, 2014) One cannot disengage architectural discussions from monetary issues. Architecture works for and within the monetary system because of the fact that building a building is so expensive. It can almost be said that the history of architecture is the history of capital. There is a relationship between, not only architecture and world events, but the economic condition that surrounds those events. “In the Marxist distinction between base and superstructure, that architecture operates as much in the superstructure as in the base. While the construction industry participates energetically in the economic engine that is the base, architecture operates in the realm of culture, allowing capital to do its work without its effects being scrutinised.” (Deamer, 2014) The recent World Cup in Brazil has brought with it a lot of controversy. Some 250,000 people lost their houses in the cities where the World Cup was to be held. While their lives were being destroyed, massive structures worth billions of dollars were being erected around them. Although the government had said that no public money was to be used, $4 billion were spent on the infrastructure to host the games - mega-stadiums, roads, buildings that will not be useful in the future etc. Meanwhile, hospitals and schools remained on the back-burner. Meanwhile, the profit for FIFA in Brazil was greater than the last two World Cups put together. How can an international governing body such as FIFA, allow this to happen? How can it put people’s in jeopardy, only to make a large profit? FIFA has now pulled out of Qatar 2022 due to the unfeasibility of the projects in a hot climate and huge public criticism that ensued.

Protests

Brazil

Contemporary Architectural Discourse

Is there a need for capitalism in architecture? Is there the need for architecture to resist capitalism? Capitalism can also form an identity for a certain place. If one were to look at Dubai or the United States, for example, capitalism has shaped their identity and produced an environment which is known world-wide. In my opinion, capitalism has both negative and positive parts to it. If used in a negative way, it can be very detrimental to the context and the society. However, if used wisely, it can pave the way for new identities, new technology and a new future.

Skyline

New York

Skyline

Dubai

Contemporary Architectural Discourse

Tendencies and Trajectories: Feminist Approaches in Architecture In a recent video that has taken social media by storm, Emma Watson posed a question at the UN HeForShe Campaign 2014 - “Why has the word [feminist] become such an uncomfortable one?” (YouTube, 2014) “Feminism by definition is the belief that men and women should have equal rights.” (YouTube, 2014) Why then, do I constantly find myself faced with men, and women for that matter, who wrongly, but strongly believe that the word ‘feminist’ means women aggressively fighting to be seen as the superior race? I believe that, as a self-proclaimed feminist, we should be living in a world where this way of thinking should be stopped. In recent studies, it has been shown that “although more women are entering the profession, a discrepancy between the number of women entering architectural education and those who become practising architects remains.” (YouTube, 2014) In my personal experience, when faced with troubled times during my course in architecture, I was encouraged by a male lecturer to consider taking a different route in my career - perhaps a career in a more stereotypically female-oriented job such as interior design. Instead of support, I found encouragement to leave. This is true for many women the world over. Statistics show that only one fifth of women in Australia become registered architects. Why are so many women leaving the architectural practice? This question has been explored by institutions such as RIBA, AIA and ArchiParlour. The latter have come up with a set of guidelines to that both open up a dialogue about equity in the workplace and attempt to encourage more women to stay in the field. Such simple guidelines can be easily applied to different practices, “creating a more diverse and equitable workforce worldwide.” 1. Pay Equity: Moving toward equal pay for women and men in architecture 2. Long hours: Challenging a long-hours culture in architecture 3. Part-time work: Creating and promoting meaningful part-time work in architecture 4. Flexibility: Making flexible working arrangements work in architecture 5. Recruitment: Achieving equitable recruitment in architecture 6. Career progression: Navigating diverse architectural careers 7. Negotiation: Negotiating effectively in architecture 8. Career break: Planning, managing and returning from a career break in architecture 9. Leadership: Promoting and supporting women to senior roles in architecture 10. Mentoring: The importance of mentors in architecture 11. Registration: Supporting women who choose to register (Architizer, 2014)

Contemporary Architectural Discourse

Feminism believes that men and women should be treated equally as humans. This is not to say that each gender possesses the same qualities. Rather, both men and women have different traits that make them who they are. In an article by Christopher N. Henry for ArchDaily, he states that “studies from psychology and neuroscience find that women, on average, tend to be more empathetic, sympathetic and less prone to narcissistic traits than their male counter parts. They are less likely to get caught up in struggles over dominance and ego that lead to visions of grandiosity.” (Henry, 2012) However, he goes on to say that one should not be judged by his/her gender when considered for a position, but rather the skills which that particular person brings to the table. “Traits possessed by the two sexes overlap considerably, so that many men are much more empathetic and sympathetic than many women.” (Henry, 2012) One particular piece of information that shocked me was the following, taken from Al Jazeera: “While the desire of male architects to limit competition partly drove professional exclusion, cultural ideas about female bodies and minds also played a significant role. Some argued that women did not have the right personality and brain for the job - the strong will that drove “genius”, the authority to supervise workers, and the spatial perception and analytical logic needed for design. In 1908, Karl Scheffler, an influential German architectural writer, went so far as to argue that women who “violated” their biological nature to become architects ended up transgendered in the process, developing masculine traits and sexual desires.” (Henry, 2012) It is a relief that architecture has come such a long way. However, there is more to be done. In architecture in particular, a higher value to empathetic and sympathetic skills should be given. This will inevitably result in a more gender-balanced profession. With a lack of gender equality, architecture is more susceptible to these narcissistic traits taking over. In my personal opinion, and from my personal experience, firms with an equal, or almost equal, ratio of men to women has always proven to be the best solution. Taking a look at the hard facts again, the numbers fail to reassure me that architectural firms are choosing the best of the best as their employees. It is impossible to say that on average, 80% of women in architecture are lacking certain skills or are less able to produce good work when compared to their male contemporaries. I hope, for the sake of architecture, that all this will change - that architecture firms will consist of a more equal balance between male and female architects. Love her or hate her, Zaha Hadid is undoubtedly a contemporary inspiration for women. She “has proven to the world that women architects can design just as well as their male counterparts.” (Quirk, 2012) It is necessary to commemorate the hard work of women throughout history who have paved the way for female architects of today. From Mary Gannon and Alice Hands in New York to Emilie Winkelmann in Germany, women all over have been working for their right to study and practise architecture.

Contemporary Architectural Discourse

Reformist or liberal tactics which aim at establishing gender equality paved the way for feminists to recognise women’s exclusion from architectural history. In order to reverse this, women such as Alice T. Friedman started by “uncovering evidence of women’s contributions either as architects of large institutional buildings in the public realm, or within the building industry and also through their roles as patrons.” (Crysler, Cairns & Heynen, 2012) Lynne Walker and Gwendolyn Wright wrote about how women had to fight for their inclusion in the architectural profession, be it at an educational level and at a professional level. It is also interesting to note how the younger generation is standing up for their rights and the rights of women. “In 2013, two Harvard Graduate School of Design students harnessed the Internet’s power to petition the Pritzker Foundation to recognise Denise Scott Brown as part of the Pritzker Architecture Prize awarded in 1991 to her husband and partner, Robert Venturi.” (Stratigakos, 2015) The decision to award solely Venturi has long been criticised since it failed to recognise the work of his wife and partner in the firm Venturi, Scott Brown and Associates. Although this failed to move the foundation to acknowledge Denise Scott Brown, it gave rise to awareness worldwide. Brinda Somaya, launched what is now a successful design firm in Mumbai, in 1978. “Starting an independent architectural practice in the 1970s,” Somaya recalls, “was not common for a young woman to do, but I never saw it that way. I loved my work and found the confidence to move forward.” (Stratigakos, 2015) Seeing women of every race and age striving to challenge and change the satus quo, gives me, as a woman, the encouragement and strength to go on.

Denise Scott-Brown

Las Vegas

Contemporary Architectural Discourse

Preservation and Modernity: Competing Perspectives, Contested Histories and the Question of Authenticity “It is our duty to hand [historic monuments] on in the full richness of their authenticity.” (The Venice Charter: International Charter for the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments and Sites, 1964) This is what the Venice Charter states. However, what is truly the definition of ‘authentic’? The UNESCO World Heritage Operations Guidelines initially said that in order to be included in the World Heritage List, cultural sites must “meet the test of authenticity in design, materials, workmanship and setting.” (‘Convention concerning the protection of the world cultural and natural heritage’, 1973) Nowadays, these requirements also include use, traditions, function, language, spirit and feeling. The Venice Charter states that the reconstruction of cultural sites, the rebuilding and restoration of sites using new material, is not allowed. It is only the reassemblage of original material that is permitted. This is where the distinction between restoration and conservation comes in. New interventions should be easily distinguishable from the original structure and material. In this way, a number of layers of history can be easily recognisable, thus not losing any of the site’s history. In this way, the building or monument keeps its authenticity by not trying to deceive the viewer in any way. This leads us to the idea that authenticity may lie in a site’s temporal context. Warsaw was rebuilt and reconstructed after the Second World War, however, it still forms part of the World Heritage List. Did it lose part of its authenticity after its reconstruction? Does the reconstruction of the Mostar bridge lose its authenticity? Or rather, “do they evoke authenticity of memory?” “Do these reconstructions not represent the ultimate act of bravery, the revival of the spirit of place?” (Jerome, 2008) With time, the definition of cultural heritage has broadened to allow, not only the monumental, but also a “wide range of tangible and intangible expressions of authenticity.” (Jerome, 2008) In a conference by the Government of Japan and ICOMOS, together with the World Heritage Committee, various views of authenticity were derived from different cultures. In Japan, their wooden temples require maintenance that “involves periodically dismantling them to replace deteriorated fabric and then rebuilding using the original construction technology.” (Jerome, 2008) Does this go against the preservation of authenticity? Did the Barcelona Pavilion by Mies van der Rohe lose its authenticity once it was rebuilt? The pavilion was designed to be a temporary structure in the 1929 International Exposition in Barcelona. Almost 60 years later, it was rebuilt in 1986 as a permanent building. The concept of autographic and allographic architecture comes into play. “The autographic identifies a category of works that cannot be replicated, i.e. every difference between a work and even its closest copy makes a difference to the work’s identity. In contrast, the allographic identifies a category of works that can be replicated, i.e., the difference between an original and its duplication is

Contemporary Architectural Discourse

Mostar Bridge

Mostar

Temple of the Flourishing Law

Japan

Barcelona Pavilion

Contemporary Architectural Discourse

Spain

Barcelona Pavilion

Ground Zero

USA

Spain

Contemporary Architectural Discourse

irrelevant to the work’s identity.” (Dspace.mit.edu, 2007) Perhaps the Barcelona Pavilion is a specific case where the autographic and the allographic citeria are interlinked. “To consider the 1986 Pavilion simply as a copy does not completely define its identity status; conversely, to conclude that they are two instances of the same work or that they are two different buildings is not accurate, either.” (Dspace.mit.edu, 2007) In my opinion, a part of its authenticity is lost in the sense that it was meant to be a temporary structure. It was designed to have a specific life span within that certain context. Having visited it myself, although upon entering it I was not concerned with this idea of authenticity, I felt as if there was something missing. It was as if it was piece of architecture, not built by its original architect, although it was. The reconstruction is true to its architect’s designs, however, it seems as if it was not designed to stand there in 2012. In this sense, I feel that it has, in fact, lost its authenticity. However, this is a very difficult statement to put out there. Authenticity is not so clear-cut, and I almost want to take it back. As I read through articles and after the discussion in class, I came to realise that authenticity is quite a difficult term to define. It becomes especially difficult when cultural traditions enter the spectrum. Following the conference previously mentioned, authenticity of tradition was recognised as a type of intangible heritage. When all these factors are considered, it is important to realise that a certain need for flexibility is essential when talking about authenticity. David Lowenthal states that “authenticity is in practice never absolute, always relative.” (Lowenthal, 1994) The issue of authenticity is much greater than the authenticity of the material with which the building is built. This also comes to light when considering the urban landscape, for example. “As in historic cities, the ongoing dynamic processes involved in places of living heritage challenge some of the traditional definitions and criteria of authenticity.” (Jerome, 2008) I am interested in how authenticity has an effect on memory in architecture. In the following journal entry, I will be discussing collective memory, and I am more accustomed to thinking of the different ways in which memory can affect architecture. But add authenticity to the argument and you’ve got a different situation, or rather a deeper one. How does one keep a place of memorial authentic? Is it through emotion and meaning, or perhaps its context? This particular text has sparked a certain yearning for me to learn more about the varying subject of authenticity. A lot of questions come to mind when thinking of a subject such as this one. Does authenticity lie in the authenticity of the materials or craftsmanship? Does it have to do with design or the setting or landscape of a monument or building? Does memory have an effect on authenticity? Or perhaps the sense of space? How does authenticity affect our decisions when looking at architecture from the conservation point of view? How can we define it in a way that would be useful in our work with historical sites? How can we use authenticity to guide us in practical situations? Must we keep in mind the cultural differences when dealing with authenticity in the conservation practice in historical sites?

Contemporary Architectural Discourse

Collective Memory Under Siege: The Case of ‘Heritage Terrorism’ Collective memory (that memory formed by the interaction and overlap of individual memories within a societal framework”(Bevan, 2006)) in architectural theory, and in particular ‘heritage terrorism’, encompasses a wide range of topics, including remembrance, amnesia, politics and memory tourism. In this journal entry I will be looking at these topics which interweave and intertwine. The Jewish Museum in Berlin is a building which was erected to commemorate all the Jews who lost their lives in the Second World War. Built in Berlin, Germany, one of the questions that comes to mind is: should the Germans be faced with such a brutal and incredibly horrific past? Should they be forced to remember what their ancestors did to fellow human beings in their own country? Most Germans are ashamed of their past, some almost want to forget it. But is this enough to deter such structures of remembrance being built? Some argue that buildings of remembrance keep people from forgetting their past, so that that past is not repeated. Does this way of thinking work in reality? Genocide Watch shows 6 areas, including Iraq, Somalia, Central African Republic, Myanmar and Nigeria, where a genocide emergency was issued by the group. Although genocide has not happened in Germany after the Second World War, are we aware that genocide is happening in other parts of the world? Is architecture giving its contribution to awareness? Although after the trauma that was brought by the Second World War, certain measures were taken by the UN so as to stop any form of future genocide, the international community did not take action when a genocide was taken place in Rwanda in 1994. “What if failure of the international community to intervene to stop the killings makes memory an insufficient tool to guarantee that killing will not re-occur?” (Crysler, Cairns & Heynen, 2012) However, is “a past that is forgotten bound to repeat itself because forgetting involves a refusal to admit wrongdoing”? (Crysler, Cairns & Heynen, 2012) Up to 1 million deaths were recorded in the Rwanda Genocide. Such a tragedy filtered its way into the realm of architecture. Memorials were built to commemorate those who had fallen victim to Rwanda’s horrific recent past. Memorials can provide people with a place of healing - a place where society can grieve its lost ones and make peace with its past. M Christine Boyer names a few places of memorial in Rwanda, namely the Kigali Genocide Memorial and that in Nyamata. There are, of course, different ways to memorialise genocide. “Some advocate excavation of bones and their reburial to bring closure for themselves and to publicly blame those responsible; others prefer to allow bones to lie where they have fallen, in order to remember the vast absences that genocide created, never to be filled.” In Hiroshima, memory was tweaked in a monument in order to create a cultural amnesia. A coffin-shaped monument was erected to commemorate those who died in the Hiroshima atomic bomb attack. 200,000 names were carved into the stone and “an epigraph: ‘Please rest

Contemporary Architectural Discourse

Jewish Museum

Berlin

Jewish Museum

Berlin

Contemporary Architectural Discourse

Kigali Genocide Memorial

Rwanda

Kigali Genocide Memorial

Nyamata

Rwanda

Contemporary Architectural Discourse

in peace, because we shall not repeat the mistake.’” (Crysler, Cairns & Heynen, 2012) However, Japanese does not have a symbol for ‘we’. Controversy erupted over the monument - “The Japanese believed they were innocent victims of the atomic blasts.” (Crysler, Cairns & Heynen, 2012) The Japanese believe “in a ‘phantasm of innocence’ as Tange’s statement implies, severing any linkage with guilt, any responsibility for the Japanese military record of rape and plunder.” (Crysler, Cairns & Heynen, 2012) Amnesia is therefore kept alive. Cultural amnesia re-enters the argument in Berlin, when the Americans destroyed the Third Reich Building. This was done in order to destroy ties with the Nazi way of thinking - destroying a culture and eradicating a system. It was purposefully done to shatter the Nazi dreams of some - to destroy the Nazi ideology. In Russia, state atheism imposed by the USSR, many churches were destroyed. The site of Christ the Saviour Church in Moscow was chosen by Stalin “as the site for a monument to socialism known as the Palace of the Soviets. This monument was to rise in modernistic, buttressed tiers to support a gigantic statue of Lenin perched on top of a dome with his arm raised in the air.” (Wikipedia, 2014) Here, we see a targeted amnesia at the church. It was only in 1990 that “the Russian Orthodox Church received permission from the Soviet Government to rebuild the Cathedral of Christ the Saviour.” (Wikipedia, 2014) In these two cases one can note how the victor or ruling power uses the destruction of architecture as a form of amnesia - to force a society to forget its past. The Bamiyan Buddhas were carved into the rock cliffs of Bamiyan in the second century AD. Mullah Mohammad Omar’s destruction of these giant Buddha statues was a targeted attack to eliminate all pre-Islamic artifacts in Afghanistan. He described the statues and any artifacts left in museums as ‘offending’ and proclaimed that “since they were only part of [Afghanistan’s] history ‘all we are breaking are stones’.” (Crysler, Cairns & Heynen, 2012) After their destruction, “some Muslim clerics condemned the destruction as ‘an act of cultural genocide against humanity.’” (Crysler, Cairns & Heynen, 2012) Bulgaria is another interesting country to look at. Communism has tainted the hearts of many Bulgarians with hatred towards the former ideologies. So much so that most of the monuments that date back to the communist era have fallen to ruin. Buzludzha, the House Monument of the Bulgarian Communist Party has also fallen into a state of ruin. Society wants to forget their past. I recently went on a trip to Sofia and when asking for directions to one of the main communist monuments, I was faced with a very disapproving look from a Bulgarian man who simply asked, “Why on earth would you want to see that?” Another important thing to note is the difference with which people from different cities or towns view these monuments and buildings. In Sofia, the Bulgarian society wanted to destroy one of the most prominent buildings in the city centre - the National Palace of Culture. The reasoning behind this was simply because it was the daughter of the former communist leader Zhivkov that suggested its erection. Bulgarians in Sofia wanted to remove any ties which the city had to its former leader. However, a contrasting difference is found in the city of Pravets. Here, in the hometown of the Zhivkov himself, a statue was put up in his honour. Here, people put a flower at his feet every day - to them, he is a hero.

Contemporary Architectural Discourse

Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park

Japan

Third Reich Building

Christ the Saviour Church

Russia

Berlin

Contemporary Architectural Discourse

Christ the Saviour Church

Russia

Bamiyan Buddhas

Afghanistan

Monument of the Three Generations

Contemporary Architectural Discourse

Bulgaria

Park Monument of the Bulgarian Soviet Friendship

Buzludzha Bulgaria

Bulgaria

Contemporary Architectural Discourse

National Palace of Culture

Sofia, Bulgaria

Zhivkov Monument

Pravets, Bulgaria

Contemporary Architectural Discourse

Lebanon went through 15 years of civil war from 1975 to 1990. In Beirut, the city was in ruins, and as soon as the war was over, people wanted to forget their difficult past. In fact, they still refer to it as “a series of nightmares” (Crysler, Cairns & Heynen, 2012) Therefore, the city was rebuilt quickly, in order to forget. Since society had not dealt with their history and made peace with it, they are now facing a difficult situation where they are almost “forced to look the beast in the eye.” (Crysler, Cairns & Heynen, 2012) In situations where a country has suffered under the hands of another country or a foreign force, I find that there is a certain feeling of payback, that the latter should suffer after what they made them endure. In China, Unit 731 was recently submitted to form part of the UNESCO World Heritage Sites. At first glance, I wondered whether the Chinese would want to remember such a cruel history under the Japanese. Unit 731 “was a covert biological and chemical warfare research and development unit of the Imperial Japanese Army that undertook lethal human experimentation during the Second Sino-Japanese War (1937–1945) and World War II.” (Wikipedia, 2014) However, on second thoughts and after a discussion held in class, I think that the Chinese people would want to show the atrocities they went through under the Japanese, purely to shame the Japanese in front of the whole world. Memory tourism is another important point to discuss. Here in Malta, although 500 years under the Knights’ rule should not be forgotten, I believe that there is a certain of memory tourism when it comes to something built by the Knights of St John. The Maltese did not particularly like the Knights and had undergone very difficult times under their rule. However, we nowadays glorify them. Time is a very important factor in any situation and nostalgia also plays its part, but it might also have to do with tourism in this case. Monuments also deal with context. Remove a monument from its original context and you have lost its meaning. Taking a look at a local example, the Sette Giugno monument was moved from St George’s Square where it belongs, to Hastings Garden. In a certain way, it has lost its meaning. I believe that society should be able to grieve, to make peace with their past. They should be given the opportunity to deal with what they went through and to commemorate their loved ones who have fallen. A society should be able to commemorate its past and hold onto its heritage.

Contemporary Architectural Discourse

Civil War Destruction

Beirut

Current Cityscape

Unit 731

China

Beirut

Valletta

Contemporary Architectural Discourse

Malta

Sette Giugno Monument

Malta

Contemporary Architectural Discourse

Rethinking the Nation In this section, the writer takes a new look at how the nation and architecture are related to each other and how one depends or influences the other. We are used to looking at architecture as being something used by the state to exercise power over its people. However, although this may be true in certain cases, the nation as a whole has a great impact on a country’s architecture. The nation can have the ability to “incorporate” or “exclude” architecture. It is interesting to look at the topic from this viewpoint and to pose new ideas and questions. One case in point is that in Brasilia. Although a new city was designed from scratch and in an attempt to create a more contemporary and ordered one, the nation still rejected it in some ways. The nation has a strong power over its architectural surroundings and we sometimes undermine it. “Nationalism [is] a rich and productive concept for architecture” and should not be taken lightly. “Unlocking the relation between the nation and the state will open up a way to conceive different national practices and narratives that work critically beneath or above the state.” (Crysler, Cairns & Heynen, 2012) The same issue crops up at the site where the towers of the World Trade Centre once stood. After an Islamic community centre was proposed for the site, the people took to the streets to protest against its erection. This shows exactly how impactful the state can be on its environment. The proposal was soon rejected. Another issue that comes up in the text by Abidin Kusno is the question whether or not “globalisation has eroded nationalism.” (E-International Relations, 2014) The elimination of communication, barriers to trade and cultural exchange gave rise to globalisation. With globalisation, the world has become more connected, creating a single, more unified world. It refers to “the compression of the world and intensification of consciousness of the world as a whole… both concrete global interdependence and consciousness of the global whole in the 20th century”. (E-International Relations, 2014) Some people argue that with this new concept, nationalism is slowly but surely being eradicated. “The term ‘nationalism’ refers to the feelings of attachment to one another that members of a nation have, and to a sense of pride that a nation has in itself.” (E-International Relations, 2014) However, there are others that are firm in their beliefs that nationalism is benefiting from globalisation. Without the advancements of the West, most countries would still be lagging behind in certain things such as technology. As we saw previously, “nationalism is in itself an international ideology, which can be used to promote and defend a particular culture and way of life” (E-International Relations, 2014) - including architecture. On the other hand, it was nationalism that gave rise to some of the major wars, “through border disputes that arise from the division of ethnic groups by territorial borders,” (E-International Relations, 2014) as can be seen in the conflict between Israel and Palestine. “Thus, nationalism has a long history, even before globalization, and it has always

Contemporary Architectural Discourse

Protests

NYC

Brasilia

Brazil

Contemporary Architectural Discourse

been something that people fight for.” (E-International Relations, 2014) So, is globalisation “a power that destroys the heritage and culture of different ethnic groups around the world” (E-International Relations, 2014) or does it promote nationalism? One belief is that globalisation promotes nationalism and vice versa. “The system of nation-states was established before globalization, and each state has contributed to the emergence of a global system. However, under globalization, the nation-state is still functioning and promoting the global system.” (E-International Relations, 2014) In a city such as Beirut, hasn’t the international style of architecture hindered nationalism in terms of heritage and identity? The nation is a very important issue when discussing architecture. Nationalism can be the driving force of a nation that wants to solidify its heritage, to remember and commemorate its unique identity through, for example, vernacular architecture. The nation has the power to accept or reject architecture; it can be manipulated by globalisation, or it can stand strong in the face of conflicting international values.