Dissertation - Hayley Mallinder by IA_UNSW

Legitimising Indigenous Interior Architecture

The Modernist Paradigm of â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Form Follows Functionâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; and its Symbiosis with Pre-Colonial Indigenous Australian Methods of Interiority

Hayley Mallinder

Bachelor of Interior Architecture (Hons.) Final Year Dissertation

Word Count: 8123

Individual Plagiarism Declaration

5062939

Mallinder

INTA2411

Dissertation

Honours

Hayley Frances

Legitimising Indigenous Architecture

Sing Dâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;Arcy

H. Mallinder

10 May 2019

Abstract This dissertation seeks to validate Indigenous methods of place making through the conception of linkages between the Modernist paradigm of â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;form follows functionâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; and Indigenous Australian architectural technique. Through comparison of a legitimatised, widely recognised architectural movement and its subsequent spatial principles, the integrity of Indigenous Australian architectural methods is argued to be as developed, considered and established. In Chapter One the historical context of Indigenous land rights establishes a foundation for the analysis of Indigenous spatial principles. The following two chapters provide a theoretical and case study analysis to provide comparison between Indigenous methods of interiority and Modernism. The primary Indigenous spatial principles that align to the Modernist paradigm apparent prior to colonisation include; the use of simplified form and a rational approach to materiality to promote a sense of order and equity within the interior realms. Through analysis and comparison of the Modernist architectural movement and Indigenous spatial technique, linkages are drawn to contemporary arrangement and key points are identified to further validate Indigenous methods of place-making as interior strategies. This dissertation aims to contribute to the growing academic discourse surrounding Indigenous interior architecture and its validation in contemporary Australia.

Acknowledgement of Country This dissertation acknowledges the Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples of this nation. I would like to acknowledge the Bedegal people that are the Traditional Custodians of this land upon which UNSW is located. I would also like to pay my respects to ancestors and Elders both past and present. This dissertation is committed to honouring Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoplesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; unique cultural and spiritual relationships to the land, waters, seas and their rich contribution to society.

Acknowledgements I would like to express my deep gratitude to Dr. Alanya Drummond for her patient guidance, enthusiasm and useful critiques of this research work. My special thanks are extended to the staff of the Built Environment of the university for their help in the gathering of valuable resources to undertake this dissertation.

List of Figures Figure

Page

1. Domiciliary Camp Structure, Paul Memmott, 2007. (Source: Memmott, P 2007,

Gunyah, Goondie and Wurley: The Aboriginal Architecture of Australia, University of Queensland Press, St Lucia, p. 31). 2. Fan-palm Leaf Dome Structure, A.A. White, 1907. Photograph. (Source: Memmott, P

2007, Gunyah, Goondie and Wurley: The Aboriginal Architecture of Australia, University of Queensland Press, St Lucia, p. 95). 3. Plan of a Walpiri Birthing Camp, Catherine Keys, 1995. (Source: Memmott, P 2007,

Gunyah, Goondie and Wurley: The Aboriginal Architecture of Australia, University of Queensland Press, St Lucia, p. 42). 4. Stone Wall Remains, Heather Builth, 2002. (Source: Memmott, P 2007, Gunyah, Goondie

and Wurley: The Aboriginal Architecture of Australia, University of Queensland Press, St Lucia, p. 192). 5. Hypothetical Reconstruction of Gunditjimara Village House, Paul Memmott, 2007.

(Source: Memmott, P 2007, Gunyah, Goondie and Wurley: The Aboriginal Architecture of Australia, University of Queensland Press, St Lucia, p. 194). 6. Rock Wall Remains, Bradshaw Station, Northern Territory, Ray Reser, n.d. (Source:

Memmott, P 2007, Gunyah, Goondie and Wurley: The Aboriginal Architecture of Australia, University of Queensland Press, St Lucia, p. 203). 7. View from Lookout, Downstream, Fallingwater, Bear Run, Pennsylvania, Frank Lloyd

Wright, 1937, Edgar Kaufmann, 1986. Photograph. (Source: Kaufmann, E 1986, Fallingwater: A Frank Lloyd Wright Country House, Abbeville Press, New York, p. 31). 8. Living Room Terraces and Glass Walls, Fallingwater, Bear Run, Pennsylvania, Frank

Lloyd Wright, 1937, Edgar Kaufmann, 1986. Photograph. (Source: Kaufmann, E 1986, Fallingwater: A Frank Lloyd Wright Country House, Abbeville Press, New York, p. 113).

9. Hypothetical Reconstruction of Gunditjimara Village House Elevation, Paul

Memmott, 2007. (Source: Memmott, P 2007, Gunyah, Goondie and Wurley: The Aboriginal Architecture of Australia, University of Queensland Press, St Lucia, p. 194). 10. Wellesley Island and Mainland Coast, Paul Memmott, 2007. (Source: Memmott, P

2007, Gunyah, Goondie and Wurley: The Aboriginal Architecture of Australia, University of Queensland Press, St Lucia, p. 55). 11. Seasonal Repertoire of Lardil and Yangkaal Shelters, North Wellesley Islands,

Southern Gulf of Carpentaria, Paul Memmott, 2007. (Source: Memmott, P 2007, Gunyah, Goondie and Wurley: The Aboriginal Architecture of Australia, University of Queensland Press, St Lucia, p. 59). 12. Lardil and Yangkaal Ngampirr Structure, Paul Memmott, 2007. (Source: Memmott, P

2007, Gunyah, Goondie and Wurley: The Aboriginal Architecture of Australia, University of Queensland Press, St Lucia, p. 59). 13. Plan of Alternative Ngampirr, Paul Memmott, 2007. (Source: Memmott, P 2007,

Gunyah, Goondie and Wurley: The Aboriginal Architecture of Australia, University of Queensland Press, St Lucia, p. 59). 14. Exterior View, The Glass House, New Canaan, Connecticut, Phillip Johnson, 1949,

Paul Warchol, n.d. Photograph. (Source: Lacayo, R 2007, ‘Splendor in the Glass’, TIME Magazine, 28 June, accessed May 2019 from TIME Magazine Online). 15. Interior View Looking North, The Glass House, New Canaan, Connecticut, Phillip

Johnson, 1949, Eirik Johnson, n.d. Photograph. (Source: Lacayo, R 2007, ‘Splendor in the Glass’, TIME Magazine, 28 June, accessed May 2019 from TIME Magazine Online). 16. Ngampirr Construction, Paul Memmott, n.d. (Source: Memmott, P 2007, Gunyah,

Goondie and Wurley: The Aboriginal Architecture of Australia, University of Queensland Press, St Lucia, p. 74).

Table of Contents Page Abstract

Acknowledgements

List of Figures

Introduction

Chapter 1: Indigenous Land Rights and Recognition of Traditional Design

Chapter 2: A Theoretical Analysis: Modernism and Indigenous Methods of Place Making

Chapter 3: A Case Study Analysis: Indigenous Interior Architecture and Modernist Spatial

Techniques Lake Condah

Ngampirr: The Wet Weather Shelter

Conclusion

List of References

Introduction The disparate spatial languages of the traditional owners of Australia and colonial forces in the late 18th century created confusion and misunderstanding, leading to a period of Australian history defined by disrupt, conflict and grief. The sacred, intimate and reciprocal relationship between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and their land dominated the culture of Australia prior to its invasion by foreign forces. The subsequent colonisation of Australia disturbed the symbiotic relationship between the First Peoples and the Australian landscape, creating an immense sense of loss within the Aboriginal community that continues to permeate modern day cultural relations. Recent calls to Parliament challenge the traditional assessment and misunderstanding of Aboriginal place making methods, igniting a new chapter in Australian history where contemporary assessment of Indigenous architecture seeks to understand the degree of establishment prior to invasion. Permeation of colonial ideology remains present, with lack of awareness of methodology surrounding Indigenous methods of architecture and place-making continuing to define land law and architectural education in modern day Australia. This dissertation aims to contribute to the growing discourse surrounding the legitimisation of Indigenous Australian interior architectural technique and methods of place making through comparison to the widely recognised architectural style of Modernism. Notably, the process of legitimisation is convoluted. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the linguistic roots of the term â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;to legitimiseâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; is associated with conformation to law or rules. The theory of legitimisation was a primary concept within Marxist theory and extended upon greatly by French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu (Johnson, 1993, p. 1). Bourdieu established a theoretical framework for legitimisation whereby collective comparison of schemes and widespread awareness elicits an established sense of validation (Webb, 2002, p. 1). This process for legitimisation is adopted in this dissertation, with comparison providing a framework into spatial principles of Modernism and Indigenous architectural methods. There is an identified gap in academic literature, recognised by Professor Paul Memmott (Memmott 2007, p. 3). Memmottâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s extensive research on Indigenous place making has contributed heavily to this dissertation and draws awareness to the limited academic discourse on the topic. In a contemporary setting, the concept of design practice involves intent and purpose and is acknowledged as a conscious process. This dissertation explores the notion of design practice within Indigenous methods of place making. The intention of Indigenous design practice was not to establish a stylistic or aesthetic parallel, but rather was heavily associated with form and function, rather than existing for aesthetic merit. This exploration of Indigenous design practice holds significant modern-day relevance, with the analysis of Indigenous culture in all its forms continuing to be of primary interest in the contemporary Australian research landscape. An understanding of the tumultuous context of Aboriginal land-rights is imperative in discussing the notion of reclamation and reparation of previously inhabited lands. In order for Australian design practice to evolve it must purposefully aim to deconstruct the damaging and exclusive mindset that negates the importance of the interiority methods of the First Peoples of this nation. 6

Symmetry regarding Indigenous practices of place-making and the principles of the modernist paradigm will highlight the fundamental similarities between the two approaches. The consistent language surrounding simplicity, visual expression of structure, open planned space and functionality is apparent within both spatial strategies. The concept of ‘form follows function’ is placed at the forefront of the Modernist paradigm, denoting the theoretical basis of the movement. Through analysis of the Modernist paradigm of ‘form follows function’ aside pre-contact Indigenous Australian interior spatial techniques the symmetry between the two concepts is highlighted. Furthermore, this dissertation outlines the historical context surrounding the lack of validation towards Indigenous Australian practices of place-making and highlights the importance of Country when discussing Aboriginal spatial theory. Analysis of the Lardil Ngampirr structures and Gunditjmara structures of Lake Condah against the Modernist examples of Phillip Johnson’s Glass House and Frank Lloyd Wright’s Fallingwater will provide a comparative framework of the approaches to interiority. The case study analysis will draw symmetry through the use of simplified, rational form and streamlined materiality to promote a sense of order and equity within the interior realms. Through analysis and comparison of the Modernist architectural movement and Indigenous spatial technique, linkages will be drawn to contemporary arrangement and key points will be identified to further validate Indigenous methods of place-making as interior strategies.

Chapter 1: Indigenous Land Rights and Recognition of Traditional Design This chapter lays the foundation for the analysis of Indigenous Australian interior architectural technique and methods of place making aside the widely recognised architectural style of Modernism through discussion of historical and social context. The first human contact upon the Australian continent occurred over 65 000 years prior to its colonisation by European forces. The First Nations peoples of Australia comprised of at least 250 different language groups and did not belong to one single political unit (Blackwood 2018). These distinctive groups co-existed upon the landscape and exercised sovereignty over the land until its takeover by external forces in the 1700s. At the time of official colonisation in 1788, Australia was proclaimed terra nullius, or ‘land belonging to no-one’. It was assessed that the Indigenous inhabitants of Australia were of a primitive state and lacked any evidence of houses or towns and instead adopted a nomadic lifestyle where groups occupied ephemeral sites (Memmott 2007). Thus, Indigenous architectural strategy in the 18th century was perceived as under-developed and primitive in nature, lacking any scale of social organisation (Jones et al, 2018). This view of Indigenous occupation has persisted into the 21st century, with the acknowledgement of legitimate Indigenous land still being of high contention within the Australian legal landscape. To gain an understanding of the significance of landscape and its entrenchment in indigenous cultures, the experiential relationship between people and place must be recognised. This interconnected relationship between the natural environment and its inhabitants is the driving force of indigenous culture and is known as Country. The term refers to “everything that includes the living and the nonliving by weaving together family, physical, mental and spiritual realms… where the health of the landscape becomes entwined with the health of its traditional custodians” (Kingsley et al. 2013, p. 682). The concept of Country is intrinsically linked to place-making in Aboriginal culture. Notably, Aboriginal places of cultural significance are established through occupation, specifically the layers of occupation over time and the subsequent development of ancestral history and narrative (Fantin 2003, p. 85). Country and its translation into spatial design can be assessed as a functional, symbiotic relationship between the inhabitants and landscape. Spatial organisation acknowledged Country through techniques such as the optimisation of resources through regular relocation, the construction of clearings for marsupial inhabitance and the manipulation of native fauna for monitored fire regimes (McGaw, 2015, p. 72). McGaw highlights that clans managed a “complex ecosystem through a sophisticated knowledge of ecological and seasonal cycles”, exhibiting the extensive connection to space and its inherent origins in the principles of Country (2015, p. 73). The principle of Country and its translation into spatial design leaves no site neutral or inert, but rather wholly connected to the actions of the land. This symbiotic relationship permeates the spatial principles adopted by First Nations peoples in the generation of place. The misunderstanding surrounding Country and traditional owner’s connection to land defined the period of conflict where land was cleared, First Peoples were relocated, and new infrastructure was built. People of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander descent were not acknowledged under colonial law, disallowing 8

First Nations peoples to assert their sovereignty over their established land. The Cooper vs Stuart case of 1889 re-established the notion of terra nullius, extending the legality of colonisation by allowing the takeover of land that was seen as ‘practically unoccupied, without settled inhabitants or settled law’ (Jones et al, 2018). This legal extension allowed for the widespread displacement of Indigenous Australians due to the unevidenced westernised dwellings and legal practices. The forced displacement of First Nations peoples and their youth created a significant disconnect between people and place, causing immeasurable distress due to the deep entrenchment of indigenous culture within the Australian landscape (Marques 2018, p. 5). In 1992, the case of Mabo vs Queensland overturned the principle of terra nullius, with the determination that the concept of ‘native title’ had endured colonisation. Thus, the presumption that no law governance or occupation of land had existed at the time of colonisation was deemed unjust and the Meriam people were granted legal and customary operational rights of the Murray Islands (Jones et al, 2018). However, although the Mabo case presented the first significant success for Aboriginal land rights, Watson notes that “the phenomenon of colonialism remains ongoing”, identifying the colonial exertion of power that had become embedded within Australian culture (1999, p. 37). Country and its lack of legitimate recognition by colonial forces created a sense of disconnect between the Indigenous population and new settlers, resulting in a new constructed landscape dominated by colonial architecture and lack of respect for traditional owners and land rights. This hierarchy of power continues to persist in modern-day Australia, with the regeneration of indigenous identity through land rights becoming more evident yet continuing to fight the resistance of a legal system built upon the inaccurate concept of uninhabited land. A legitimisation of indigenous identity within the built environment and the Australian social landscape at large can be seen through recent legal acts acknowledging the land rights of traditional owners. Specifically, the most significant legal movement in modern day Australia occurred on March 14, 2019 in a High Court ruling that awarded $2.5 million in compensation to Ngaliwurru and Nungali native title holders for economic and non-economic loss caused by colonisation and subsequent disconnection from their land (Ludlow 2019). The recognition of economic loss identifies the tangible loss of legitimate town holdings, settlements and sacred sites, which is a significant advance in Australian land rights law. Through the legal recognition of the pure existence of these sites, the complexity and range of Indigenous architectural methods can be analysed. Thus, revealing the multitude of established and functional societies that employed sophisticated spatial techniques prior to colonisation. Thus, the modern-day significance surrounding Indigenous land rights is evident, with the continuation of compensation and granting of land sovereignty dependant on the identification of established space and governance. Through the identification of explicit spatial techniques, the legitimacy of Aboriginal land ownership can be established, and the importance of interiority and inhabitancy is revealed as a significant component of Indigenous culture and connection to Country. In summary, historical context surrounding Indigenous land rights and recognition provides insight into the complex, layered history of the Australian landscape. Traditional owners were stripped of authoritative right with the arrival of foreign forces, resulting in a period of relocation, depletion of resources and conflict 9

of power. Through assessment of Indigenous methodology of place making and the concept of Country the intricate and reciprocal relationship between the First Peoples and the landscape is apparent. The legal movements of the early 19th century diminished established relationships to land held by the traditional owners and instead created a new dialogue of grief and disconnect. Through contemporary reassessment of established place, a reignition of Indigenous culture emerges to reclaim land once taken by colonial forces. Such contemporary assessment requires a sense of understanding of Indigenous practice in contemporary terms. An understanding of the tumultuous context of Aboriginal land-rights is imperative in discussing the notion of reclamation and reparation of previously inhabited lands. Through comparison to contemporary architectural methods, the presence of previously established townsites and community hubs is revealed, presenting a new understanding and awareness for Aboriginal spatial technique. The provision of a spatial translation between Indigenous architectural methods and modern-day practice, as established in Chapter Two, allows for these established and legitimate place-making methods to be recognised in contemporary terms, resulting in further legislation to recognise and provide reparation for stolen land.

Chapter 2: A Theoretical Analysis: Modernism and Indigenous Methods of Place Making The following chapter will outline the modernist principle of form follows function aside Indigenous Australian spatial techniques in order to draw symmetry between methodology. The sacred connection to site and its translation into environmental symbiosis that defines Indigenous methods of place-making is echoed centuries later in the Modernist architectural paradigm of form follows function. This comparison strives to legitimise Indigenous Australian architecture through identifying similarities with a widely recognised and validated architectural movement. Notably, there is limited discourse surrounding this topic, with Australia still in a period of history where Aboriginal settlements continue to fight for economic valuation of land prior to colonisation. However, although considerably disparate in historical context, the spatial technique held by Indigenous methods of place-making reflect a similar method of streamlined design fuelled by adaptability, environmental symbiosis and resourcefulness. Through analysis and comparison of the Modernist architectural movement and Indigenous spatial technique, linkages will be drawn to contemporary arrangement and key points will be identified to further validate and establish a framework of Indigenous methods of place-making as interior strategies. The foundations of Modernism and its mantra of ‘form follows function’ arose in a period of history where ornamentation was rejected and order, equity and fundamental human needs were prioritised. The Modern era in architecture came to existence in the 1920s and held precedence in architectural trends until the 1970s. Although hindsight recognises Modernism as an architectural style, it is important to highlight its origins as a social cause. Sociologist Nathan Glazer draws awareness to its inception following World War I and a general desire for a more ordered and equitable society (2007, p. 2). The style first emerged in the Bauhaus School of Crafts and Architecture, founded in Germany in 1919 by Walter Gropius (Grumbach 2009, p. 2363). The approach to spatial planning sought to address the people and their primary interests, rather than overt displays of self through ornamentation and embellishment (Glazer 2007, p. 2). The movement was fuelled by the mantra, ‘form follows function’, first stated by architect Louis Sullivan in 1896. Sullivan expressed his belief that the design of a building should primarily reflect its main uses (Gellerman 1990, p. 66). Sullivan stated that, ‘all things in nature have a shape, that is to say, a form, an outward semblance, that tell us what they are, that distinguishes them from ourselves and from each other...whether it be the sweeping eagle in his flight…the drifting clouds, over all the coursing sun, form ever follows function, and this is the law.” (1896, p. 11). This expression of ‘form follows function’ evolved to define the modernist movement, also known as International Style, allowing for the pure function of structures to define the form in which they existed. Sullivan’s philosophy resulted in his recognition as America’s first fundamentally modern architect, with his form follows function mentality fuelling his renowned work surrounding skyscrapers and their stringent form. Sullivan’s student Frank Lloyd Wright, whom also evolved into one of America’s most renowned Modernist architects, extended on Sullivan’s words and suggested “form and function are one” (1953, p. 203). According to Wright, the development of Sullivan’s philosophy within the Modernist movement had 11

disregarded the fundamental stance behind the concept, that being one which approaches a methodology of ‘from-within-outward’. Wright stated, ‘the ground already has form. Why not begin to give at once by accepting that? Why not give by accepting the gifts of nature?’ (1953, p. 154). Wright further fuelled the modernist movement through this philosophical development, suggesting “the principle of ‘form follows function’ is mere dogma until you realise the higher truth that form and function are one.” (1952, p. 154). Neither Sullivan nor Wright invented modern structural methods but philosophically fuelled the spatial intention surrounding Modernism in the 20th century. ‘Form follows function’ was the guiding principle of Modernism, or International Style, and its principles reflected the ideology of rationalised design and simplified form. Key principles of the movement included; lack of ornament, open plan arrangement, visual expression of structure, emphasis on horizontal and vertical lineage and simple form (O’Neill 2015, p. 142). Although the style was not limited to such principles, these elements became key features of recognition for Modernist structures. Furthermore, the historical placement of the style resulted in a favourable use of industrial materials, specifically those that exemplified structural innovation such as steel and reinforced concrete. Lack of ornamentation challenged the preceding Neoclassical architectural style of the 18th century, one which favoured antiquity, detail and embellishment (O’Neill 2015, p. 135). With lack of ornamentation arose a newfound favourability for open-plan design, with open aired areas rejecting previous forms of spatial arrangement that promoted division and stringent zoning. This principle is believed to have emerged from a desire for equity order following the historical period of turmoil following World War I. Glazer acknowledges that, “Modernism in architecture and planning spoke for the people and their interests”, further indicating the original emergence of Modernism as a social cause (2007, p. 2). The industrial innovation of the early 19th century initiated a period of mass production, allowing for geometrical forms surrounding linearity to be favoured due to the cost-efficient nature of processed materials (O’Neill 2015, p. 142). Subsequently, simplified form complemented the streamlined materiality and open plan arrangement, creating a stylistic movement with a consistent spatial language that became the defining architectural model in the time period. Symmetry between Indigenous practices of place-making and the principles of the modernist paradigm highlight fundamental similarities between the two approaches. The consistent language surrounding simplicity, visual expression of structure, open planned space and functionality is apparent within both spatial strategies. Overall, the presence of form dictating function fuels both approaches. The Indigenous methods of place-making highlight a sense of resourcefulness, allowing for material elements to expose structural innovation due to the complicit use of form tending to function. In Indigenous examples of place-making, ‘form follows function’ is established through a general analytical approach to structure, where the benefits of the landscape were harnessed and manipulated to achieve spaces of shelter, community and gathering. In the modernist paradigm of ‘form follows function’, these principles are also apparent, with the historical context also determining the materiality used and thus exposed to reveal structural innovation. The modernist rejection of enclosed and ornamented spaces is reflected in Indigenous place-making through the resourceful approach to encompass all aspects of the materiality used. 12

In both spatial approaches ‘form follows function’ through rational use of materials, purely functional design and an analytical approach to structure. Indigenous culture depicts a symbiotic relationship with the land, one where inhabitants belong to the landscape and share this land with ancestors, plants and animals. Generally, tradition is manifested through narrative, custom, songs and rituals where Country is imbued in every aspect (Marques 2018, p. 8). In Country humans, nature and culture are not regarded as separate entities but are instead intrinsically linked. Country cannot be separated from the person, due to Country being embedded within humanity itself (Kingsley et al. 2013, p. 680). Therefore, the loss of land can be attributed to a loss of ones self, identifying the extent of emotional and physical distress that was endured by First Nations peoples in the arrival of colonial forces. The spatial arrangement thus embodied the land, where interiority and notions of shelter were intertwined with the landscape. Through this interconnected relationship, the translation of landscape into inhabited space is wholly determined by the principles of Country. Notably, Academic Dr. Jonathan Kingsley states that Aboriginal peoples’ connection to land should not be romanticised, but instead recognised as a multifaceted belief system that embodies generations of ancestral experience, passed down through narrative (2013, p. 687). The spatial organisation established by Indigenous groups prior to colonisation was directly fuelled by Country, meaning all spatial insertions had an intrinsic link to place and function. This acknowledgement of Country allowed for function to dictate form, where forms were adjusted as required to suit lifestyle changes, environmental needs and social organisation (Memmott 2007). According to Anthropologist and Architect Paul Memmott, documentation indicates that “Aboriginal vernacular architecture was an expression of a complex set of relationships between the physical and social environment” (2007). This underlying connection to functionality directly prescribed the forms of Indigenous Australian architecture and interiority methods. The primary functions of space and their underlying principles wholly reflects the concept of Country. The intrinsic connection between landscape and inhabitancy is a defining concept in the discussion of the role of space and interiority for Australia’s First Nations Peoples. Notably, the diversity within Indigenous Australian culture is extreme, with over 250 language groups existing at the time of colonisation (Blackwood 2018, p. 14). Due to this expansive diversity, it would be inappropriate to generalise architectural methods and spatial techniques as homogeneous amongst all Aboriginal groups. Due to the limited discourse surrounding Indigenous spatial technique, the analysis of recorded methodology will allow a minute insight into the complex architectural functions and forms that existed prior to Australia’s colonisation, while identifying the prominent paradigm of function dictating form throughout all place-making practices. The primary Indigenous spatial principles apparent prior to colonisation include; an analytical approach to structure, rational use of material, open planned interiors, structural innovation, purely functional design and lack of ornamentation. These principles are apparent in pre-colonisation examples of place-making. A primary function in the design of Aboriginal camps was that of access and the overall promotion of community. Space within the community was organised by group; nuclear families, single women and single 13

men, referred to as domiciliary groups (as seen in Figure 1; Memmott 2007). Domiciliary spaces were made up of shelters, hearths and activity areas. The hearth of the space denoted a gathering area, with primary and secondary hearths present within one site. In areas where the natural environment promoted mobility, this function was a prominent feature of the architecture, directly dictating the forms of the space. This analytical approach to spatial planning is evident in South East Australia within the architectural methods of the Girramay people, with the use of rigid sheets of bark upon domed shelters (as seen in Figure 2). These sheets of bark were weaved into the structure, allowing for them to be removed from the frame and transported to another pre-framed site (Memmott 2007).

Figure 2. Fan-palm Leaf Dome Structure, A.A. White, 1907. Photograph. (Source: Memmott, P 2007, Gunyah, Goondie and Wurley: The Aboriginal Architecture of Australia, University of Queensland Press, St Lucia, p. 95).

Figure 1: Domiciliary Camp Structure, Paul Memmott, 2007. (Source: Memmott, P 2007, Gunyah, Goondie and Wurley: The Aboriginal Architecture of Australia, University of Queensland Press, St Lucia, p. 31). This expression of structure and materiality highlighted the structural innovation of the space, often used to distinguish sites from one another due to their disparate spatial language (Memmott 2007). Furthermore, structures within the Palawa and Yidinjdi language groups usually consisted of up to seven or eight morphologies, with selection depending on environmental factors, resources and length of stay. In pleasant weather, open living and minimal structural elements were preferable, dictating the form of the space to be adaptable for such inclement weather changes (Memmott 2007). Shaded structures were generally constructed as space for socialisation, with the construction of â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;windbreakersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; allowing for the protection from the elements as well as a sense of community gathering (as seen in Figure 3; Memmott 2007). This 14

promotion of open planned living and simplicity within structural elements highlights the analytical and adaptable approach to structure that underpins spatial technique within Indigenous place-making.

Figure 3: Plan of a Walpiri Birthing Camp,

Catherine

Keys,

1995.

(Source: Memmott, P 2007, Gunyah, Goondie and Wurley: The Aboriginal Architecture of Australia, University of Queensland Press, St Lucia, p. 42).

Through the conception of linkages between the Modernist paradigm of ‘form follows function’ and Indigenous Australian architectural technique the validation of Indigenous methods is approached through a comparative analysis of the two methods. Through comparison of a legitimatised, widely recognised architectural movement and its subsequent spatial principles, the integrity of Indigenous Australian architectural methods is argued to be as developed, considered and established. This comparison is highly important due to the continued lack of understanding of such established spatial technique in Australia. Through assessment against contemporary arrangement, the alignment of principles of both Modernism and Indigenous Australian architecture dismantles the preconceived notion of ‘terra nullius’. Such dismantling is essential in a society where a colonised mentality continues to permeate the recognition of established Indigenous Australian settlement. Through analysis of specific spatial arrangement, the established architectural principles of Australia’s First Peoples were evidently misunderstood and disregarded at the time of colonial invasion.

Chapter 3: A Case Study Analysis: Indigenous Interior Architecture and Modernist Spatial Techniques The following chapter will conduct a comparative spatial analysis of examples of Indigenous architecture and Modernist principles in order to provide insight into the analogous elements within each methodology. The diverse nature of Australian Indigenous architecture cannot be wholly appreciated within the limits of this dissertation. For this reason, several Aboriginal architectural examples will be utilised to identify examples of each spatial technique. The cultural diversity of Indigenous Australia and the individual and unique nature of each Aboriginal group is recognised within the analysis of spatial technique. Through spatial analysis of the architectural methods of such disparate cultural groups this dissertation strives to draw awareness to the complexity of Indigenous architectural methodology, rather than assemble Aboriginal groups into one singular realm.

The partial discourse surrounding Aboriginal interior

architectural methods results in the limited provision of various, geographically disparate examples exhibiting similar architectural technique. Due to the disparate historical, social and geographical contexts of Indigenous architecture and the Modernist architectural movement the two concepts provide both similarities and considerable differences. For this reason, the Modernist principles that will establish a comparative framework will be; the integration of simplified form fuelled by context and the rational use of streamlined materiality to promote order and equity within spatial planning. These two techniques will act as a framework through which the two spatial techniques of Indigenous Australian interior architecture can be directly compared to Modernism. The integration of simplified form and its inherent contextual influence is a spatial technique commonly expressed within the Modernist movement that also holds significant precedence in Indigenous structures. The modernist concept of ‘form follows function’ denotes an approach to architecture where the form of the structure is entirely influenced by its desired function (Gellerman 1990, p. 58). Louis Sullivan’s original statement describing such an approach channelled natural examples of ‘form follows function’ stating, “unfailingly in nature these shapes express the inner life, the native quality, of the animal, tree, bird, fish, that they present to us, they are so characteristic, so recognisable, that we say simply, it is natural” (1896, pp. 7). In modernist terms, contextual influence regarded the social, geographical and functional qualities of a structure, with emphasis upon simplified and rational design in order to function under a spirit of populism in the 20th century (Grumback 2009, pp. 2263). This architectural approach to populism strived to target society as a whole, with simplified design creating a sense of homogeneity in order to evoke a sense of equality and community (O’Neiil 2015, p. 141). A prominent feature of Modernist structures is a sense of order and equity within spatial planning, especially though the implementation of open planned space. Architects Le Corbusier and Mies van der Rohe readily utilised the open plan concept, with Le Corbusier including the concept of open plan living in his ‘Five Points of Architecture’ published in the 1920s (Colquhoun 2002). Open plan living gained popularity in the 20th century with Frank Lloyd Wright pioneering the design of a central kitchen realm open to other public spaces within the home (Schoenauer 2003, p. 384). Open plan living continued to become a defining feature of Modernism, further fuelling the 16

style’s social influence to instil a sense of equality and order within society. Although in contemporary studies the open plan arrangement garnered attention in the 20th century, precedence is evident in Indigenous Australian architectural structures where domiciliary groups were arranged around hearths, promoting equality and order within the spaces (Memmott 2007, p. 76). Notably, the historical contexts of the rise of modernism and pre-contact Aboriginal architecture are incongruent. However, the integration of contextual elements into a sense of simplified and rational design expounds throughout the two architectural approaches. This case study will analyse the architectural structures at the site of Lake Condah and their interiority that reflect a sense of simplified form influenced by contextual elements. The contemporary example of Frank Lloyd Wright’s ‘Fallingwater’ will provide a point of comparison to allow for the similar architectural principles to come to light. Lake Condah Surveyors in 1898 discovered a collection of circular stone structures upon the stone-ridden landscape of Western Victoria near the Gundijmara territory of Lake Condah, where colonial surveyor Alex Ingram conversed with the local Indigenous community to further understand the abundance of these structures (Memmott 2007, p. 176). Lake Condah and its abundance of architectural relics remained minimally explored until the 1970s when the interpretation and mapping of these stone structures became popularised by the Victorian Archaeological Survey of the area (Memmott 2007, p. 177). Original colonial surveyance denoted these structures as naturally occurring, further embedding the belief that the Indigenous community lacked sedentary structures (Builth 2002, p. 168). Contemporary study, specifically by archaeologist Heather Builth, provides evidence of human origins of such structures, indicating the presence of architectural principles amongst Indigenous methods in pre-colonial Australia (2002, p. 168). The site of Lake Condah was of interest due to its placement within a natural basin that once conducted the flow of basalt lava from the mountain ranges to the coastline, resulting in an array of stone structures (Memmott 2007, p. 177). Such structures were manipulated to establish the Gunditjmara community of the region prior to colonisation. The Gunditjmara region, which spans fifty kilometres in length, facilitated the construction of a semi-sedentary community, where seasonal movement throughout the community allowed for summer harvesting at the coast and winter time harvest within the in-land engineered farming estates (Builth 2002, p. 168). The resourceful exploitation of natural resources within the region is recognised as ‘intensification’ within archaeological literature. Intensification on a community level within the Gunditjmara people resulted in the construction of a community that responded to such activity within the surrounding environment (Memmott 2007, p. 178). The result of such environmental manipulation was a collection of architecture that reflected the natural environment through simplified and rational form. The structural forms described at Lake Condah include; circular plan forms, figure-six plan forms and series of intersecting arcs to create enclosed space (as seen in Figure 4; Memmott 2007, p. 177). Of these, the circular plan forms were most prominent, with interior elements dictated by contextual factors. The circular nature of the stone structures allowed for the production of structurally sound enclosures, with stones 17

emulating modern brick sizes of 200mm by 100mm, further evidenced through the depletion of these size stones from the surrounding natural landscape (as seen in Figure 5; Builth 2002, p. 168). Dr Heather Builth determined the non-random configuration of the stone structures, indicating purposeful spatial planning in order to produce public and privatised space (2002, p. 171). Simplified spherical form allowed for ease regarding demarcation of space, where higher raised walls depicted areas of rest and shelter and lower-rise structures acted as windbreaks for temporary gathering (Builth 2002, p. 180). This is evidenced in Figure 2, where low-rise structures demarcate pathways and public windbreaks and thicker, taller structural elements house sleeping areas and private gathering space (as seen in Figure 6). The presence of circular structures with intersecting parts indicates the promotion of community within the Gunditjmara country, with areas of gathering communicated through spatial technique. Hence, it is clear verticality was utilised in order to define space, with semi-public gathering realms indicated through low-rise structures and private areas indicated through vertical concealment. Form was further fuelled by function in the presence of openings in the east and north-east realm of the interior, seemingly dictated by primary wind patterns within the region (Memmott 2007, p. 176). The spatial arrangement within the evidenced sites at Lake Condah depict interiors that respond to contextual demands, specifically the promotion of community and responses to climatic elements of the region.

Figure 4: Stone Wall Remains, Heather Builth, Figure 5: Hypothetical Reconstruction of Gunditjimara 2002. (Source: Memmott, P 2007, Gunyah, Village House, Paul Memmott, 2007. (Source: Goondie and Wurley: The Aboriginal Architecture of Memmott, P 2007, Gunyah, Goondie and Wurley: The Australia, University of Queensland Press, St Aboriginal Architecture of Australia, University of Lucia, p. 192).

Queensland Press, St Lucia, p. 194). 18

Figure

Rock

Wall

Remains,

Bradshaw

Station,

Northern

Territory, Ray Reser, n.d. (Source:

Memmott,

2007, Gunyah, Goondie and Wurley:

The

Architecture

Aboriginal

of Australia,

University of Queensland Press, St Lucia, p. 203).

A Modernist example that exhibits a sense of simplified form under contextual influence is that of ‘Fallingwater’, designed by Frank Lloyd Wright and constructed in 1935 (Storrer 1974, p. 234). Frank Lloyd Wright’s ‘Fallingwater’ remains a Modernist icon in contemporary architecture studies, with the interior and exterior realms uniting in a structure that reflects and honours its immediate natural context. The features of Wright’s ‘Fallingwater’ are expansive and reflected a sense of innovation in regards to the blurring of interiority and exteriority within the time period (as seen in Figure 7; Storrer 1974, p. 234). Specifically, the simplified form and its response to its natural context reflects analogous principles to those evidenced in Lake Condah, with both architectural examples resulting in a sense of wholly appropriate contextual placement. Both examples are structures that are seemingly embedded within the landscape.

Figure

View

from

Lookout,

Downstream, Fallingwater, Bear Run, Pennsylvania, Frank Lloyd Wright, 1937,

Edgar

Kaufmann,

1986.

Photograph. (Source: Kaufmann, E 1986, Fallingwater: A Frank Lloyd Wright Country House, Abbeville Press, New York, p. 31).

Through Wright’s implementation of concrete cantilevers atop the natural rock structure, to the Gunditjmara people’s configuration of surrounding rock structures to embed residences within the existing landscape, both structures sought to entrench simplified form into their immediate natural contexts. Both examples blur interior and exterior realms through rectilinear approaches. ‘Fallingwater’ emphasises the horizontal nature of its structural forms to contrast the vertical drop of the waterfall below (as seen in Figure 8). Contrastingly, Lake Condah structures utilise verticality and enclosure to denote public and private realms (as seen in Figure 9). However, although contrasting in approach, the intent of both historically-disparate examples are one of contextual immersion through rational form. The homogeneity in technique evidences the notion of ‘form follows function’ and its prevalence within both architectural examples.

Figure 8: Living Room Terraces and Glass Walls, Fallingwater, Bear Run, Pennsylvania, Frank Lloyd Wright, 1937,

Edgar

Kaufmann,

1986.

Photograph. (Source: Kaufmann, E 1986, Fallingwater: A Frank Lloyd Wright Country House, Abbeville Press, New York, p. 113).

Figure

Hypothetical

Reconstruction of Village

House

Memmott,

Gunditjimara

Elevation, 2007.

Paul

(Source:

Memmott, P 2007, Gunyah, Goondie and Wurley: The Aboriginal Architecture of

Australia,

University

Queensland Press, St Lucia, p. 194).

Rationality in regard to materiality is another consideration towards spatial approach commonly associated with Modernism. Materiality acts as a visual identifier for the Modernist movement, with streamlined aesthetic and clean composition defining the nature of the style in the 20th century. Such focus upon streamlined materiality can be attributed to the historical context of the rise of Modernism, where massproduction was becoming readily available and such economic efficiency was translated into Modernist structures (Glazer 2007, p. 2). Materials such as concrete, glass and steel are commonly associated with the 20

Modernist movement, a concept in which Glazer attributes to the innate nature of Modernism as a social cause, aimed to establish equity and clarity within the nuclear spatial realm (2007, p. 2). The Modernist paradigm of ‘form follows function’ motivated the selected materiality, where such materiality was inherent to the architectural form which reflected its underlying functionality (Gellerman 1990, p. 59). In Indigenous Australian architecture, the rational use of natural resources can be linked to Country where the landscape and built form is a symbiotic relationship, rejecting waste and promoting resourcefulness in terms of materiality. Pre-colonial Indigenous spatial identity was established through its holistic approach to structure, where the materiality embraced the existing ecological systems and further supported the environment through structures dictated by the landscape (McGaw 2015, p. 72). Both Indigenous Australian and Modernist methods of interiority sought to establish materiality that was inherent to the architecture, complementing the basis of the ‘form follows function’ paradigm. The following case study will assess the spatial methods of the wet weather shelters of Ngampirr and the use of rational and streamlined materiality to establish a symbiotic functional space. The Glass House of New Canaan by Phillip Johnson will be assessed alongside as a contemporary study in order to highlight the similarity in spatial technique. Ngampirr: The Wet Weather Shelter The Lardil and Yangkaal people are the traditional owners of the land within and surrounding Gununa, or Mornington Island, in the Gulf of Carpentaria, Northern Queensland (Evans 2007). The Lardil population is estimated to have been between 280 and 320 persons, with an average clan size of 10 or less. Due to the geographical nature of Gununa there was widespread mobility upon the island, with smaller groups, or patriclans, merging throughout the seasons in order to accommodate for weather and resource changes (as seen in Figure 10). The geographical placement of the Lardil people resulted in the generation of a seasonal repertoire of shelters to use throughout both wet and dry months (as seen in Figure 11; Memmott 2007, p. 59). This repertoire utilised streamlined materiality in order to produce forms for an array of functions. This rational use of materiality is especially reflected in the wet-weather shelters, or Ngampirr, where the spatial technique and materiality used is entirely fuelled by the functional needs of the shelter. Ngampirr were employed towards the end of the calendar year, where cyclonic weather frequented the Gulf of Carpentaria (Memmott 2007, p. 73). Such climatic conditions resulted in occupation of Ngampirr for up to six weeks, resulting in the wet-weather structures being the most structurally elaborate of the Lardil shelter repertoire (Memmott 2007, p. 73). Through rational and streamlined material use, the construction of the Ngampirr allowed for the form of the shelters to complement the structural integrity demanded by the conditions of the landscape.

Figure 10: Wellesley Island and Mainland Coast, Figure 11: Seasonal Repertoire of Lardil and Paul Memmott, 2007. (Source: Memmott, P 2007, Yangkaal Shelters, North Wellesley Islands, Gunyah, Goondie and Wurley: The Aboriginal Southern Gulf of Carpentaria, Paul Memmott, Architecture of Australia, University of Queensland 2007. (Source: Memmott, P 2007, Gunyah, Goondie Press, St Lucia, p. 55).

and Wurley: The Aboriginal Architecture of Australia, University of Queensland Press, St Lucia, p. 59).

Ngampirr were comprised of four posts, horizontal railing with woven materiality, roof beams and cladding (as seen in Figure 12; Memmott 2007, p. 73). Rectolinear or cubic in form, these wet weather shelters served to protect from natural elements such as climatic conditions and mosquito infestation. These primary functions dictated the form and materiality of the sites, resulting in shelters that utilised streamlined materiality in a rational manner. Such streamlined materiality consisted of grass, paperbark and leaves woven between wooden posts (Curr 1886, p. 96). Roof lining comprised of a combination of paperbark and sand in order to absorb water and provide a structural dead lock in order to minimise movement throughout turbulent weather conditions (Curr 1886, p. 96). Smoke was integrated within the interior realms in order to repel mosquitos in the tropical climate, with minimal interior openings allowing for a smoke barrier to be established upon the ceiling structure in order to combat infestation (Memmott 2007, p. 74). Such spatial qualities suggest an array of spatial technique surrounding rational materiality use. Firstly, the construction of Ngampirr surrounding a central hearth, with rectilinear spatial planning allowing for a structure that

provides a structural solution to the demands of the climatic conditions, as well as a centre for gathering around a fire realm (as seen in Figure 13). The amalgamation of sand and paperbark within the roof lining evidences a streamlined use of materiality providing a rational solution to the interior realm, absorbing excess moisture and thus providing comfort within the interior. Notably, such streamlined materiality use is further appreciated when discussed in a year-long context, when the Ngampirr would be deconstructed to generate another shelter type (Memmott, 200, p. 49). Thus, complementing the nature of the landscape and further indicating the resourceful and rational material use.

Figure 12: Lardil and Yangkaal Ngampirr Figure 13: Plan of Alternative Ngampirr, Paul Structure,

Paul

Memmott,

2007.

(Source: Memmott, 2007. (Source: Memmott, P 2007,

Memmott, P 2007, Gunyah, Goondie and Wurley: The Gunyah, Goondie and Wurley: The Aboriginal Aboriginal Architecture of Australia, University of Architecture of Australia, University of Queensland Queensland Press, St Lucia, p. 59).

Press, St Lucia, p. 59).

Phillip Johnson’s Glass House in New Canaan, Connecticut is a Modernist example that exhibits a rational use of streamlined materiality in a contemporary context. Completed in 1949, the Glass House is one of two Modernist structures in the United States recognised by the National Trust for Historic Preservation due to its nature as a landmark for Modernist architecture (Tutter 2011, p. 511). Johnson’s Glass House comprises of a rectangular, one-room house that is permeated by a central brick form encasing the central hearth of the space (as seen in Figure 14). The materiality of the Glass House is the key element of its design, with its streamlined use of glass, concrete and brick defining the spatial language of the site (as seen in Figure 15). The four glass encasements place the structure into its natural landscape, making the dwelling virtually embedded within its surroundings (Lind 2006, p. 193). Architectural critic Futagawa describes the interior of the residence as “one vast open room with invisible partitions and corridors… everything radiates outwards from the tall cylindrical chimney ascending vertically”, evidencing the open-plan nature of the space and its limited spatial hierarchy defined by its seamless materiality (1972, p. 4). Rational use of streamlined materiality is evident in Johnson’s structure, with the symbiosis between materiality and form also evident in the interior of the Lardil and Yangkaal Ngampirr structures. 23

Figure 14: Exterior View, The Glass House, New Canaan, Connecticut, Phillip Johnson, 1949, Paul Warchol, n.d. Photograph. (Source: Lacayo, R 2007, ‘Splendor in the Glass’, TIME Magazine, 28 June, accessed May 2019 from TIME Magazine Online).

Figure 15: Interior View Looking North, The Glass House, New Canaan,

Connecticut,

Phillip

Johnson, 1949, Eirik Johnson, n.d. Photograph. (Source: Lacayo, R 2007, ‘Splendor in the Glass’, TIME Magazine, 28 June, accessed May 2019 from TIME Magazine Online).

Through Johnson’s installation of glass, reflective walls the structure reflects its outer surroundings, as if to pay homage to its natural setting. Similarly, through materials extracted from the surrounding landscape, the Ngampirr embeds itself into its context through material homogeneity and synthesis. Furthermore, Futagawa describes the Glass House interior as “disconcerting to find a huge space, filled with light from transparent glass walls, so reassuringly solid and enclosed” (1972, p. 4). Notably, the material use within Ngampirr also suggests a spatial experience that places the interior into the exterior realm, with the weaving of materials within the horizontal railing structures allowing for insight into the climatic conditions outside. This insight into the exterior realm is mirrored through Johnson’s use of glass walls and both Ngampirr and the Glass House counteract this immersion into the natural landscape through structural integrity that encloses the space in a concealed and secure manner. Noticeably, both structures are similar in plan, with a central hearth dictating a free-flowing movement throughout the interior, further suggesting the lack of restriction presented by the materiality of the space, where the interior experience is dictated by the exposure to external factors. Through comparison of the Ngampirr and Glass House structures it is clear the rational use of streamlined materiality sought to achieve similar spatial immersion, creating interior spatial experiences that are dictated by the selected materiality, in turn fuelled by the function of the structure (as seen in Figure 16). 24

Figure 16: Ngampirr Construction, Paul Memmott, n.d. (Source: Memmott, P 2007, Gunyah, Goondie and Wurley: The Aboriginal Architecture of Australia, University of Queensland Press, St Lucia, p. 74).

Through comparative spatial analysis of Indigenous Architecture and Modernist principles, insight is provided into the symbiosis that is present between the two spatial approaches. The Modernist paradigm of â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;form follows functionâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; permeates throughout Modernist principles and is especially prevalent within the concepts of contextual relevance and rational, streamlined materiality to promote order and equity within spatial planning. Although academically recognised in the Modernist paradigm, these principles are preceded in Indigenous architecture as exemplified through the examples outlined in the argued case studies. Through comparison of Lake Condah and Fallingwater, the symbiosis between context and form is evidenced in both architectural examples. Contemporary technique in Phillip Johnsonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Glass House is emulated in the wet weather shelters of Ngampirr, with materiality fuelled by function evident in both interiors. Through spatial awareness of Indigenous Australian architecture prior to colonisation and its similarity to the widely recognised Modernist movement, the legitimacy of Aboriginal spatial intention is argued to be justified. The spatial sequences within the two case studies only exemplify a small sample of Indigenous architectural examples, which once dominated the Australian landscape. The recognition of Indigenous spatial technique is not only important to the process of reconciling land rights, but also provides insight into the nature of Aboriginal lifestyles prior to invasion, allowing for contemporary Australian interior architecture to incorporate Indigenous spatial technique into the construction of the contemporary Australian landscape.

Conclusion Contemporary Australian interior architecture continues to be permeated with the colonial mindset established in the 1700s, with Indigenous spatial techniques lacking validation in realms such as education and legislation. The colonisation of Australia significantly disrupted the symbiotic relationship between the First Peoples and the landscape, creating immense grief within the Aboriginal community. The spatial organisation established by Indigenous groups prior to colonisation was directly fuelled by the concept of Country. This acknowledgement of Country allowed for function to dictate form, where forms were adjusted as required to suit lifestyle changes, environmental needs and social organisation. The sacred connection to site and its translation into environmental symbiosis that defines Indigenous methods of place-making is echoed centuries later in the Modernist architectural paradigm of form follows function. This dissertation contributed to the legitimisation of Indigenous Australian architecture through identifying similarities with a widely recognised and validated architectural movement. Through spatial analysis of the pre-contact Gunditjmara stone structures at Lake Condah and Lardil and Yangkaal wet-weather shelters, Ngampirr, the underlying symbiosis with Modernist spatial strategy was revealed. Principles such as the rational and streamlined use of materiality that continues to be a praised hallmark of the Modernist movement is prevalent in Aboriginal Australian interiority where structures were purposefully embedded into the landscape to promote environmental symbiosis. The integration of simplified form and its contextual influence is further exemplified in both Modernist and Indigenous interior architectural technique further indicating the symmetry between the two planning approaches. Although contextually the two architectural approaches are dissimilar, the intention behind the spatial technique is extremely comparable, further validating the contentious recognition of pre-contact Indigenous architecture. The prevalence of Indigenous spatial technique in comparison to the Modernist paradigm affirms the existence of legitimate architectural methods prior to colonisation. As established in Chapter 1, contemporary relevance of this topic renders the research undertaken within this dissertation as highly significant. The continuing conflict surrounding Aboriginal land rights and the legitimisation of Indigenous dwelling highlights the significant need for academic discourse surrounding Indigenous architectural methods and their spatial language. Through analysis of a widely recognised architectural movement alongside the consistently disputed existence of Indigenous architectural intent this dissertation validates the interiority methods of Aboriginal Australian architecture. As identified in Chapter 2, Modernism is widely recognised as a legitimised architectural movement, with significant academic discourse surrounding its origins and principles. The concept of ‘form follows function’ is placed at the forefront of the Modernist paradigm, denoting the theoretical basis of the movement. Through analysis of the Modernist paradigm of ‘form follows function’ aside pre-contact Indigenous Australian interior spatial techniques the symmetry between the two concepts is highlighted. Furthermore, this dissertation outlined the historical context surrounding the lack of validation towards Indigenous Australian practices of place-making and highlighted 26

the importance of Country when discussing Aboriginal spatial theory. Due to the limitations of this dissertation the concept of Country and its prevalence throughout Aboriginal architectural theory is introduced. Continued research into Country would further validate the legitimisation of Aboriginal placemaking. Notably, the academic literature surrounding Aboriginal methods of interiority is limited and through further academic discourse of such architectural methods the integrity of Aboriginal Australian spatial technique can be disseminated in order to break down traditional colonial mindsets of Indigenous methods of place-making. This dissertation aims to contribute to filling the gap in Indigenous architectural research and is intending to be submitted for publication to The Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, Australia and New Zealand in their thirtieth volume promoting literature surrounding Australasian vernacular architecture. The continual misperception of Indigenous methods of architecture and interiority is damaging to the regeneration of Indigenous culture within contemporary Australia. The colonial view of Indigenous occupation as primitive and nomadic has persisted into the 21st century, with the acknowledgement of legitimate Indigenous land still being of high contention within the Australian legal system. In order for Australian design practice to evolve it must purposefully aim to deconstruct the damaging and exclusive mindset that negates the importance of the interiority methods of the First Peoples of this nation. The insight into landscape and environmental symbiosis associated with Country and Aboriginal methods of place-making is invaluable to the design practice landscape of Australia. Ultimately, the insightful approaches to architectural methodology of Indigenous Australia precedes the widely celebrated Modernist movement by 65 000 years, indicating an approach to spatial design that was evolved, considered and resourcefully implemented.

List of References Blackwood, A 2018, The Caterpillar Dreaming Trail: Towards an Understanding of Conciliatory Landscapes, School of Indigenous Studies, University of Western Australia, Perth. Builth, H 2002, The archaeology and socoioeconomy of the Gunditjmara: a landscape analysis from southwest Victoria, Australia, Flinders University of South Australia, Bedford Park. Clarke, P 2008, Aboriginal Plant Collectors: Botanists and Australian Aboriginal People in the Nineteenth Century, Rosenberg Publishing, Kenthurst. Colquhoun, A 2002, Modern Architecture, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Curr, E 1886, The Australian Race: Its Origin, Languages, Customs, Place of Landing in Australia, and the Routes by which it Spread itself over that Continent, Trubner and Co, Melbourne. Dovey, K 2000, ‘Myth and Media: Constructing Aboriginal Architecture’, Journal of Architectural Education (1984-), vol. 54, no. 1, accessed 17 March 2019 from JSTOR. Fantin, S 2003, ‘Aboriginal Identities in Architecture’, Architecture Australia, vol. 92, no. 5, pp. 84-87, accessed 17 March 2019 from Australian Public Affairs Full Text. Futagawa, Y 1972, Johnson House, New Canaan, Connecticut, 1949-, A.D.A. EDITA Tokyo Co, Japan. Gellerman, S 1990, ‘In Organizations, as in Architecture, Form follows Function’, Organizational Dynamics, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 57-68, accessed 2 April 2019 from ELSEVIER. Glazer, N 2007, From a Cause to a Style: Modernist Architecture’s Encounter with the American City, Princeton University Press, Princeton. Grumbach, K 2009, ‘Redesign of the Health Care Delivery System: A Bauhaus “Form Follows Function” Approach’, Journal of American Medical Association, vol. 302, no. 21, pp. 2363-2364, accessed 2 April 2019 from JAMA Network. Johnson, P 1998, ‘Preface’, Deconstructivist Architecture, The Museum of Modern Art, New York. Jones, D, Choy, D, Tucker, R, Heyes, S, Revell, G, Bird, S 2018, Indigenous Knowledge in the Built Environment: A Guide for Tertiary Educators, Australian Government Department of Education and Training, Canberra. Jorgenson, J, Plomley, N 1991, Jorgen Jorgenson and the Aborigines of Van Diemen’s Land, Blubber Head Press, Hobart. Kaufmann, E 1986, Fallingwater: A Frank Lloyd Wright Country House, Abbeville Press, New York Kingsley, J, Townsend, M, Henderson-Wilson, C, Bolan, B 2013, ‘Developing an Exploratory Framework Linking Australian Aboriginal Peoples’ Connection to Country and Concepts of Wellbeing’, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, vol, 10, accessed 17 March 2019. 28

Lacayo, R 2007, ‘Splendor in the Glass’, TIME Magazine, 28 June, accessed May 2019 from TIME Magazine Online Lind, D 2006, ‘A Glass House in Upstate New York opens both Kitchen and Bath to the Outdoors’, Architectural Record, vol, 294, no. 7, p. 193, accessed 5 May 2019 from EBSCOHOST. Ling, R 1899, The Aborigines of Tasmania, F. King and Sons, Halifax. Lloyd Wright, F 1953, The Future of Architecture, Horizon Press, New York. Ludlow, M 2019, ‘Timber Creek decision opens can of worms on ‘spiritual losses’ for native title’, Australian Financial Review, 14 March, accessed 17 March 2019, <https://www.afr.com/news/politics/timber-creekdecision-opens-can-of-worms-on-spiritual-losses-for-native-title-20190314-h1ccu8>. Marques, B 2018, ‘Fostering Landscape Identity Through Participatory Design With Indigenous Cultures of Australia and Aotearoa/New Zealand’, Space and Culture, vol. 1, no. 1, accessed 17 March 2019 from SAGE. McGaw, J, Pieris, A 2015, Assemling the Centre: Architecture for Indigenous Cultures, Australia and beyond, Routledge, New York. Memmot, P 1988, ‘Aboriginal Housing: The State of the Art (or Non-State of the Art)’, Architecture Australia, pp. 34-45, accessed 17 March 2019. Memmott, P 2007, Gunyah, Goondie and Wurley: The Aboriginal Architecture of Australia, University of Queensland Press, St Lucia. O’Neill, K 2015, ‘When Form Follows Fantasy: Lessons for Learning Scientists From Modernist Architecture and Urban Planning’, Journal of the Learning Sciences, vol. 25, pp. 133-152, accessed 2 April 2019 from Routledge. Posner, E 1986, ‘Architecture: A Celebration of Ornament’, Wall Street Journal, October 21, accessed 2 April 2019, pp. 1. Power, J 2010, ‘Healthy Buildings of the Tasmanian Aboriginal Peoples’, Interiors: Design/Architecture/Culture, vol. 1, no. 3, accessed 17 March 2019 from Taylor and Francis Group. Robinson, G, Plomley, N 1966, ‘Friendly Mission: The Tasmanian Journals and Papers of George Augustus Robinson, 1829-1834’, Tasmanian Historical Research Press, Hobart. Ryan, L 1996, The Aboriginal Tasmanians, Allen & Unwin, St Leonards. Storrer, W. A. 1974, The Architecture of Frank Lloyd Wright: A Complete Catalog, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Sullivan, L 1896, ‘The Tall Office Building Artistically Considered’, Lippincott’s Magazine, March 1896, pp. 1 – 11, accessed 2 April 2019. Tutter, A 2011, ‘Design as Dream and Self-Representation: Phillip Johnson and the Glass House of Atreus’, Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, vol. 59, no. 3, pp. 509-548, accessed 5 May 2019 from SAGE Journals. Webb, J, Schirato, T and Danaher, G 2002, Understanding Bourdieu, Allen & Unwin, Sydney.