Close Reading & Analysis

BACHELOR OF SCIENCE (HONOURS) IN ARCHITECTURE THEORIES OF ARCHITECTURE AND URBANISM (ARC61303) SYNOPSIS: REACTION PAPER (APRIL 2019)

Name: Lin Shan En

ID No.: 0331085

Lecturer: Ar. Prince Favis Isip

Tutorial Time:

Reader/Text Title:

Synopsis No: 1B

Towards A New Architecture

Author: Le Corbusier

“Architecture or Revolution”

“The man of to-day is conscious of a new world which is forming itself regularly, logically and clearly, which produces in a straightforward way things which are useful and usable, and on the other hand he find himself, to his surprise, living in an old and hostile environment.” Le Corbusier, in his text, relates revolution with demoralization of human being, where a disconnection between a man’s daily activities and his “handicapped” family life is observed. The new tools and machine have improved the world, but not one’s home.

Corbusier stressed on the lack of a suitable environment that responds to the changing way of living and working. Neither the workers nor the intellectuals, are living in a built environment up to par with the quality of work they produced due to the fast pace of revolution, in which the progress appears “as hateful as it is praiseworthy”. This is when Corbusier questioned: “Architecture or revolution?”

I agree to the need for social improvement and better quality of life in the age of modernism, making full use of technological advancement. However, to avoid the detrimental effect of revolution, in Corbusier’s proposal of Radiant City, is to oppose the normal organic evolution of cities by determining the behaviour of people and history through a centrally planned and controlled environment, in which the commercial, business, entertainment and residential areas are strictly segregated. His approach, to me, neglects the third place where social interaction happens outside where you live and where you work. When the means of travel from home to workplace can no longer take place on foot, pausing become difficult and there is no time to experience. This is similarly true for highways in Kuala Lumpur, where drivers pass each other at high speeds, stop infrequently and are otherwise largely insulated from one another.

Unlike Corbusier’s theory which superseded the various experiences a city can offer by its randomness, personally, I believe more in Jan Gehl’s theory on walkable cities, where chance encounters and unexpected detours are more likely to happen instead of a robotic, routine-like daily. Growing up in Rawang, a small suburb town, to me, spontaneous social interaction is a part of daily life, thus the unpredictable behaviour of people should determine the environment, instead of otherwise.

Of course, I do believe the way people live can be directed a little by architecture, as mentioned by Tadao Ando too, but not to the extent where precise standardization compromises the freedom of people and restricts evolution. The question now, is not only how do we cope, when “industry has created its tool, business has modified its habits and customs, construction has found new means”, but also to what extent the planning of city should go to offer certain spontaneity to its people?

It is about finding balance. To avoid revolution without compromising evolution.

Architecture and evolution.

Word Count: 475

Mark

Grade

Assessed by:

Date

Page No. 1

BACHELOR OF SCIENCE (HONOURS) IN ARCHITECTURE THEORIES OF ARCHITECTURE AND URBANISM (ARC61303) SYNOPSIS: REACTION PAPER (APRIL 2019)

Name: Lin Shan En

ID No.: 0331085

Lecturer: Ar. Prince Favis Isip

Tutorial Time:

Reader/Text Title:

Synopsis No: 2B

Complexity & Contradiction in Architecture

Author: Robert Venturi

“A valid architecture evokes many levels of meaning and combination of focus: its space and its elements become readable and workable in several ways at once.” Robert Venturi, in his text, referred to architecture of complexity and contradiction as “the difficult whole” which respond to the “complex behavior of people and how they move through their environment”, compared to a bland architecture which disregard the need of variety in visual experiences and spatial possibilities to achieve forced simplicity.

I strongly agree to how Venturi claims that architects should only determine the ways to solve problems, but not which of the problems to be solved. The growing complexities of our society and problems should be addressed during our design process. This is especially true when we are to design for different type of users; let it be age groups, ethnics, social background or interests. Excluding certain group of people is always easier than accommodating all of them, but that is not how architects should commit, or we will be “separating architecture from the experience of life and the needs of society”.

Although Venturi regards modernism with its focus on simplicity as boring, he made it clear that he does not against “the desire of simplicity” if this aesthetic simplicity are derived from inner complexity, nor he deny the “valid simplification” as a method in the analytical process to achieve in complex art. I do believe that Venturi is not against modernism, instead he is in search of how architecture should be redefined, breaking away from the formality and lack of variety in modern architecture.

However, I find it very difficult to define postmodern architecture, looking at its diversity in sculptural forms and expressive ornamentation.

This might be due to its “both-and” nature: not much about a singular style but an amalgamation of many styles that are borrowed from history, reacted to urban context and embraced decorative tradition. In a closer examination, I think the whole point about post-modernism is being undefined, as what assumed by postmodernism philosophy: there is no single knowable truth independent of anyone's observation or opinion. Imagine if all ideas and facts are ‘believed’ instead of ‘known’, and no one’s opinion is better than the other, wouldn’t we all be more open-minded?

Therefore, I believe that Venturi’s idea of “difficult unity of inclusion rather than the easy unity of exclusion”, is valid, be in terms of architecture, or worldview. If we can recognize the various paradoxes present in architecture, we should be able to embrace individual differences in our society, let it be nationalities, political views, religious beliefs or sexualities. This is very relatable in our multiracial country, especially in this period of Ramadhan, when we can observe in our campus itself: food untouched on a table seated by a group of friends.

Although not all of them practice fasting, they respect their Muslim friends who are sitting together, by waiting for iftar before starting to eat.

To conclude, Venturi’s idea of “both-and” inspired me to look at a new pluralism, not only in architecture, but also as a new tolerance in how I should acknowledge and respect the differences between one another. With that our world will be free from prejudice, discrimination and stereotyping, but welcomes ambiguity and embraces what Venturi called “the difficult whole.

Word Count: 549

Mark

Grade

Assessed by:

Date

Page No. 2

BACHELOR OF SCIENCE (HONOURS) IN ARCHITECTURE THEORIES OF ARCHITECTURE AND URBANISM (ARC61303) SYNOPSIS: REACTION PAPER (APRIL 2019)

Name: Lin Shan En

ID No.: 0331085

Lecturer: Ar. Prince Favis Isip

Tutorial Time:

Reader/Text Title:

Synopsis No: 3B

The Geometry of Feeling

Author: Juhani Pallasmaa

“A Look at the Phenomenology of Architecture”

“Are forms the real basic elements of architecture at all? Are even such elements of buildings such as walls, windows or doors the real units of architectural effect?” Juhani Pallasmaa, in his text, highlighted how architecture is not about the physical form, but instead the experiential quality which evokes people feelings and memories. He supported his statement, by recalling how he remembers the distinctive views, smells and experiences which made up his childhood memories but not the number or type of doors and windows.

Pallasmaa refers to the primary feelings of architecture as what makes a building “architecture” instead of a “large-scale sculpture or scenography”, which drove my approach in designing a performing art center for Studio V. I came to realize that a cultural landmark, instead of a physical one will create “phenomenological authentic feelings” in which the people of Kajang can relate to. Inspired by Pallasmaa’s words, instead of form and massing, I started off by articulating the interstitial space to create intimacy and connections through the experience of walking through the building.

I admire the way Pallasmaa points out how buildings nowadays are built up by combining various visual elements in the play of form, without considering “the images transmitted by the forms and the emotional force that they carry”. In a way, stimulation of visual senses is taking over the reality of overall experience. This reminds me on how the growing impact of social media nowadays, has changed the way we perceive things: visually and superficially. We are obsessed with ‘insta-worthy’ cafes, wonderful enhancing filter and photo editing application like VSCO, rather than the multi-sensory experience of walking through a memorial. Even when walking through a memorial, we tend to take photos for social media sharing purpose. After all, the richness of experience is resolved to purely visuals. We, the human of social media era, are in fact shallow and can only see skin-deep beauty, which leaves me questioning for the answer to Pallasmaa’s first question in the text: “Why do very few modern buildings appeal to our feeling?”

Is it because of the way architects build without considering the inner language of building? Or is it also because of the way users fancy the aesthetic of visual composition over experiential quality?

I find this reader equally important to every Millennials and Generation Z as it is to architects. It makes me rethink how the younger generation now, fails to see through the skin and does not “feel” that much. To me, this reader is not only a wake-up call to every architect, but also implies an alarming symptom on how people nowadays relies too much on one single sense of visuals. Thus this reader serves as a reminder to me, as a future architect, to concern the human-socialhistory dimension in my design process of interior spaces, but at the same time, it provokes me, as one of the many GenZ, to value the experiential quality a building offers and fully use my five senses in experiencing the world.

Word Count: 503

Mark

Grade

Assessed by:

Date

Page No. 3