Authenticity in Aboriginal Architectural Representation by Natalia Dou

Authenticity in Aboriginal Architectural Representation: a study of â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Aboriginalâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; buildings designed by non-Indigenous architects from 1990-2010

Natalia Dou Bachelor of Interior Architecture Final Year Dissertation UNSW Faculty of Built Environment UNSW Australia 2019

ABSTRACT The extreme and multifaceted effects of colonialism on both the perceived identity and the desired identity of Aboriginal Australians has only recently begun to be theoretically examined and acknowledged by non-Indigenous Australians. In order to metaphysically begin the process of reconciliation and authentic acknowledgment of indigenous populations, it is crucial that todayâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Aboriginal Australians are heard and enabled to narrate their own identities and cultures, and be represented authentically in architecture.

This dissertation questions what â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;authenticâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; Aboriginal representation could be in this post-colonial Australian context through four case studies of projects by two nonIndigenous architectural firms, George Burgess Architects and ARM Architects. Both architects work in varying levels of engagement with their Aboriginal clients however despite this they both enable their client to narrate their own identity and culture. To conclude each study, both Indigenous and non-Indigenous architectural critiques will be explored to better understand the relationship, and the perceived contrast, between the narrative that the relevant Indigenous community wants to put forward and how it is interpreted within the non-Indigenous architectural society.

This dissertation brings to light some of the discourses existing within our contemporary Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australian society. The intent of this paper is to theoretically examine how Aboriginal identity may be represented in architecture and the discourses which surround this representation.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF COUNTRY I acknowledge the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples of Australia and recognise their continuing connection to land, waters, sky and culture. I acknowledge the Bedegal people of the Eora nation on which the institution used to conduct my study are located on. I pay respects to their Elders past, present and emerging.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS My many thanks to Dr. Belinda Dunstan, Dr. Sing Dâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;Arcy and Jacqueline Mills for their inspiring passion for interior architecture which has encouraged me to always push the boundaries of my learning.

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Figure 2.1:

View of Uluru Kata-Tjuta Aboriginal Cultural Centre roof, Northern Territory, Gregory Burgess Architects, 1995, photo by Gregory Burgess Architects (Burgess 2019)

Figure 2.2:

View of Brambruk Living Cultural Centre roof, Victoria, Gregory Burgess Architects, 1990, photo by Gregory Burgess Architects (Burgess 2019)

Figure 2.3

Aerial view of Uluru Kata-Tjuta Aboriginal Cultural Centre, Northern Territory, Gregory Burgess Architects,1995, photo by Gregory Burgess Architects (Burgess 2019)

Figure 2.4

Front elevation of Brambruk Living Cultural Centre, Victoria, Gregory Burgess Architects, 1990, photo by Gregory Burgess Architects (Burgess 2019)

Figure 2.5

Floor plan of Uluru Kata-Tjuta Aboriginal Cultural Centre, Northern Territory, Gregory Burgess Architects, 1995, photo by Gregory Burgess Architects (Burgess 2019)

Figure 2.6

Floor plan of Brambruk Living Cultural Centre, Victoria, Gregory Burgess Architects, 1990, photo by Gregory Burgess Architects (Burgess 2019)

Figure 2.7

Section of Uluru Kata-Tjuta Aboriginal Cultural Centre, Northern Territory, Gregory Burgess Architects, 1995, photo by Gregory Burgess Architects (Burgess 2019)

Figure 2.8

Section of Brambruk Living Cultural Centre, Victoria, Gregory Burgess Architects, 1990, photo by Gregory Burgess Architects (Burgess 2019)

Figure 3.1

View of Barak building from Swanston St axis, Melbourne, ARM Architecture, 2015, photo by Peter Bennetts, (Hansen 2015)

Figure 3.3

View of Barak building carpark braille facade, Melbourne, ARM Architecture, 2015, photo by ARM Architecture, (ARM Architecture 2019)

Figure 3.4

View of National Museum of Australia braille roof, Canberra, ARM Architecture, 2001, photo by ARM Architecture, (ARM Architecture 2019)

Figure 3.5

Photograph Form at Bondi, Sydney, Max Dupain, 1939, (Art Gallery NSW)

Figure 3.6

View of office block facade, Sydney, ARM Architecture, 2005, photo by Piotr Czaja (Czaja 2017)

Figure 3.7

Map of Melbourne CBD, Swanston St axis highlighted in red, Melbourne, 2019, drawn by Author

Figure 3.8

Map of South West Australia showing Uluru and National Museum of Australia axis, 2019, captured from Google Maps, edited by Author

Figure 3.9

Aerial view of National Museum of Australia, Canberra, ARM Architecture, 2001, captured from Google Maps, edited by Author

Figure 3.10

Exterior elevation of Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies, Canberra, ARM Architecture, 2001, photo by Anoma Pieris (Pieris 2013)

Figure 3.11

Exterior elevation of Villa Savoye, Poissy, Le Corbusier, 1929, photo by Joelix.com (Joelix.com n.d.)

Figure 3.12

Aerial view of National Museum of Australia, Canberra, ARM Architecture, 2001, captured from Google Maps, edited by Author

Figure 3.13

Aerial view of Jewish Museum, Berlin, Daniel Libeskind, 2001, photo by Guenter Schneider (Singhal 2012)

TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION

p. 6 - 8

CHAPTER ONE

p.9 - 14

Neo-colonialism and the Perceived Aboriginal Identity by non-Aboriginal Australians

p.10 - 12

Representation of Indigenous Identity in Architecture

p.13 - 14

CHAPTER TWO Case Study: Uluru-Kata Tjuta Aboriginal Cultural Centre, Northern Territory, 1995

p.15 - 21 p.15 - 18

Gregory Burgess Architects

Case Study: Brambuk Living Cultural Centre, Victoria, 1990

p.18 - 21

Gregory Burgess Architects

Chapter Two Illustrations CHAPTER THREE Case Study: Barak Building/Portrait, Victoria, 2015

p.22 p.23 - 29 p.24 - 27

ARM Architects

Case Study: National Museum of Australia and the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies, Australian Capital Territory, 2001

p.27 - 29

ARM Architects

Chapter Three Illustrations CONCLUSION REFERENCES APPENDIX A

p.30 - 31 p.32 - 34 p.35 - 43 p. 44

INTRODUCTION Colonialism in Australia has segregated Aboriginal Australian’s from many of their societal platforms by creating the sense of ‘otherness’. This is not always done intentionally but simply through not acknowledging that there is a difference between Aboriginal culture and research and Western culture. It should be acknowledged that they are both valid and significant in their own right. This was done as all elements of civilization were based on a Euro or western framework as Australia was colonised by the British, one of the strongest Western Euro powers in the world.

This dissertation hypothesizes that there exists an inherent relationship between the supposition formed regarding Indigenous culture, which is based within the post and neo colonialist context, and the cultural values which have been imbued into designs for Indigenous communities. One of the original explorations of neo colonialism was by Ghanaian politician Kwame Nkrumah (1909 - 1972) in his text, Neo-Colonialism, the Last Stage of Imperialism (1965: 1) in which he states ‘the essence of neo-colonialism is that the State which is subject to it is, in theory, independent and has all the outward trappings of international sovereignty. In reality its economic system and thus its political policy is directed from outside.’

Paul Memmott’s dictum on design concepts and processes for Aboriginal buildings is that,

‘Indigenous people themselves must be allowed to define who they are (their collective identity) and how they wish to be portrayed through architecture [and it is the] role of the architect to take the given expressions and representations of identity and offer ways in which they can be distilled, expressed and realised in architectural form’ (Memmott, Reser 2000: 70).

Through this method, Aboriginal architecture is approached through a design process of Aboriginal client ‘speaking’ and non-Indigenous architect ‘listening’ (Memmott, Reser 2000).

The first chapter examines texts from a range of post-colonial and neo-colonial theorists from countries which have either been the colonising state or been colonialised. This analysis explores some of the effects that colonialism has on the

indigenous community. Examining this impact can help architects to understand the issues and discourses surrounding representing Aboriginal identity. Robert J.C. Young’s book Postcolonialism: an historical introduction (2001) will be used as the main source to define neo-colonialism. Additionally, Cedric Wyatt’s publication, Aboriginal people: Addressing dependency in Australia (1997), explores some of the recorded and quantifiable effects of colonialism and neo-colonialism on Indigenous communities. Antonio Gramsci, an Italian Philosopher and Politician (1891 - 1937) explores the notion of cultural hegemony - the colonising society continues to subjugate the Indigenous by intellectual and economical means and through Western architecture, ultimately changing the ethos of the entire society (Indigenous and non-Indigenous) to reflect their own culture. Along a similar vein, the theoretical work of Frantz Fanon hypothesizes that attitude hold precedence to any ‘method’ of decolonising a peoples. This being said, this dissertation will explore how we can begin to decolonise the colonised cultures by allowing the indigenous to finally express their culture, values and identity through the built form, thus breaking the cycle of cultural hegemony and giving the chance to change the attitudes of society. The concept of decolonisation of Indigenous cultures is explored in through texts by a range of Indigenous and nonIndigenous architects and researchers from Australia and other post-colonial countries. It is concluded that the next stage to post colonialism is the need for the social indigenous environment to be decolonised by being given the opportunity to narrate their own identity and culture.

Chapter two and three explore some of the complexities in representing Aboriginal identity and diversity of Aboriginal cultures through two case studies of Aboriginal cultural centres by Gregory Burgess and two case studies of an apartment building and National museum by ARM Architects. These case studies step through the narrative that was intended by the Aboriginal client and the significance their involvement had to their community and its impact on the process of theoretically decolonialising Australia,

each case having a slightly different method for achieving this.

It is important to acknowledge that this paper explores some issues which may be of sensitive nature to some readers. It is acknowledged that the author does not identify as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander and there may be certain meanings which are unintentionally misinterpreted. Additionally, it should be noted that due to the small scope of this individual research paper, the topics discussed are only a small fraction of the issues of colonialism and the complex dialogue between Indigenous and nonIndigenous Australians.

CHAPTER 1 ‘Pillaging is called shopping, and rape is practiced onerously in specialised shops. But the basic attitude has not changed: the natives are killed less frequently but they are scorned collectively, which is the civilised form of massacre; the aristocratic pleasure of counting the differences is savoured’ (Sartre 1964, trans 2001: 22).

Since Australia’s invasion in 1788 by Captain Arthur Phillip on behalf of the British Empire, Aboriginal Australians have been on a long journey in reclaiming their land and social rights within the contemporary post-colonial Australian society (Korff 2019). Since then, there have been some effort through government policy and public acknowledgments which attempt to socially decolonise the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people of Australia (Korff 2019). The social and political tensions of Australia’s fragmented history has not gone unnoticed by the general public and has become an increasing source of inspiration for architects as a result. Architecture often drifts between the worlds of functionality, in which a need is fulfilled, and art, which is the creators creative output in response to their social and political context. This study explores both types of architecture and their relation to the discourse of Aboriginal identity in the current neo-colonial context.

This chapter is concluded with a discussion on the representations of Aboriginal identity in architecture. In particular, Paul Memmott’s and Joseph Reser’s paper, Design

concepts and processes for public Aboriginal architecture (2001), briefly discusses the challenges of designing Aboriginal architecture as a non-Aboriginal architect then explores methods and strategies which could be used to achieve a culturally sensitive, ‘authentic’ and appropriate design resolution which achieves a level of Aboriginal identity. Additionally, texts by other prominent writers on Aboriginal architecture, like Mathilde Lochert and Caroll Go-Sam will be discussed.

NEO-COLONIALISM AND THE PERCEIVED ABORIGINAL IDENTITY BY NONABORIGINAL AUSTRALIANS In defining neo-colonialism, British post-colonial theorist Robert J.C. Young notes that despite the ‘political sovereignty’ being returned to the formerly colonised state, ‘they nevertheless remain subject to the effective control of the major world powers, which constitute the same group as the former imperial powers’ (2001: 45). Young elaborates that this control is through a ‘continuing economic hegemony’ which leaves the formerly colonised in a state of dependency and the former masters ‘continue to act in a colonialist manner’ (2001: 45). In perhaps Australia’s most frightening example of Young’s definition of neo-colonialism is the 1905 Aborigines Act, just four years after Australia gained its independence from Britain (Australian Government n.d., Wyatt 1997). The Act legalised the violent removal of Aboriginal children from their families, communities, culture and land, then placed them with white Christian Australian families to assimilate into the newly independent Australian society (Wyatt 1997). Aboriginal Australian Cedric Wyatt (1940 - 2014) who was the Chief Executive Officer of the Aboriginal Affairs Department and the Chairman of the Aboriginal Lands Trust at the time of his publication Aboriginal people: Addressing dependency in Australia (1997), notes that the Act ‘radically undermined Aboriginal self-reliance and capacity to co-exist or compete in the wider community and.. reduced Aboriginal communities to total dependency on non-Aboriginal generosity, it dissolved the stability of Aboriginal families and communities, it destroyed trust between Aboriginal people and governments, and it tore apart the cultural fabric which provided Aboriginal people with their spiritual and social unity’.

Sadly, this was not the only example of ‘structured dependency’ and ‘racial oppression’ (Huggan 1997: 19). The Aboriginal population was reduced by approximately 90% during the first 10 years of British colonisation of Australia which had a catastrophic effect on the retention of the fabric of Aboriginal culture (Harris 2003: 81). Furthermore, following Australia’s Federation, one of the first Bills which was passed was the Immigration Restriction Act (1901), which was yet another method for the ‘colonial master’ to enforce the sense of ‘self-other, we-they, west-rest and on the essentialising of that ‘other’ (Lochert 1997: 9, National Museum of Australia n.d.). In more recent times, the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare reported that thirty-nine percent of ‘the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians health outcomes can be explained by social determinants’ including reduction in employment, increase in contact with the criminal justice system, increase in need for child protection, increase in risky alcohol consumption and increase in drug and other substance for Indigenous Australians (2018). All these factors and many more rationalise Frantz Fanon’s theory that the ‘feeling of inferiority of the colonized is the correlative to the European’s feeling of superiority’ (1952, trans. Markmann 1967: 93).

Through theories explored above, it could be deduced that colonialism in Australia has complex and lasting effects on Aboriginal Australians. It is the ‘west’ which creates the ‘rest’. Further enforced through acts of segregation and the active eradication of Aboriginal culture and people and then through the inevitable cultural hegemony as the country became more and more Anglicised (Korff 2019). Along with the theoretical hegemony, there is also the Westernisation of Australia through built form and the changing of civilisation (Lochert 1997). Due to the active eradication and segregation, there has been a gap in education and acknowledgment of Aboriginal culture (Lochert 1997). In our modern day society, the general public only acknowledge Aboriginal culture as authentic in a pre-contact state (Fantin 2003). This subversion of modern Aboriginal culture to the ‘primitive’ aligns with Fanon’s notion that ‘decolonisation is an ongoing process which involves a constant vigilance to recurring colonial threats’,

this association with primitive being the recurring colonial threat (cited in Huggan 1996:20). Fantin (2003) states that Aboriginal identity is entwined with external forces and influences, architecture being one of them. It can therefore be deduced that architecture, if not designed with caution and through Aboriginal authorisation, can become yet another recurring colonial threat and a very permanent and bold one at that. Fanon stated quite accurately ‘that colonialism doesn’t come to an end with the declaration of political independence or with the symbolic lowering of the last European flag’ (cited in Huggan 1996:19). As will be explored in the following chapters, these social and political issues are multifaceted, each scenario having its unique set of challenges and therefore its own set of appropriate outcomes.

REPRESENTATION OF INDIGENOUS IDENTITY IN ARCHITECTURE In the next chapters, there are two methods of acknowledging Aboriginal culture. One of which is through Aboriginal authorisation and in depth participatory design which focuses on ‘the Aboriginal client “speaking” and the non-Aboriginal architect “listening”’ and reflects a more ‘functional’ approach to the Aboriginal identity in architecture (Lochert 1997:8). The other method reflects an approach often associated with art which involves the artist’s creative response to their social and political context and a generation of discourse within the general public or its audience (Memmott, Reser 2000). Where the first method captures the active dictation of chosen identity, the latter makes comments on the perceived identity of Aboriginal people which has the broader intent of generating discussion and interest, indirectly leading to further education on the topics of Aboriginal identity.

Memmott and Reser’s first suggestion in their 2000 paper is to not view Aboriginal architecture as a new ‘style... but rather a design process that achieves a goal’

(Memmot, Reser 200: 70). It is suggested that a method in theoretically breaking the cycle of ‘other’ is to allow Indigenous people to ‘define who they are (their collective identity) and how they with to be portrayed through architecture’ (Memmott, Reser 2000: 70). Both Memmott and Lochert suggest ‘Aboriginal client speaking and nonAboriginal client listening’ to remind architects to ‘take the given expressions and representations of identity and offer ways in which they can be distilled, expressed and realised in architectural form’. Memmott and Reser acknowledge the difficulty in portraying Aboriginality in architecture and references the warning by Dovey that ‘most architecture for Aboriginal people arguably has its source in a power structure in which “the native ‘other’ finds a voice only within the framework of a dominate discourse” and that “the state has a fixed interest in seeing Aboriginal identity ‘fixed’ in built forms’

This issue could be addressed with consultation of architects or academic writing with Aboriginal background, however at this stage there are ‘only a few professional Aboriginal graduates of architecture, in Australia’, making it all the more difficult for nonIndigenous architects to navigate this field (Memmott, Reser 2000: 71). In spite of this difficulty, Memmott and Reser suggest many methods, themes and processes which could aid architects in addressing Aboriginality with sensitivity and authenticity which enable them to listen to what is being spoken by Aboriginal clients. Many of these are demonstrated in the case studies which follow this chapter. Gregory Burgess’s Ulutu-Kata Tjuta Aboriginal Cultural Centre and Brambuk Living Cultural Centre are also referenced by Memmott and Reser as a ‘Best Architectural Practice to Date’ due to their resounding success among their relevant Aboriginal clients and their methods which facilitates many opportunities for the architect to ‘listen’.

In further justifying the necessity for Aboriginal identity to be crafted through a ‘speaking’ and ‘listening’ design process is Fantin’s recount of her experience working with the Yolngu people in Arnhem Land in which the ‘client groups specifically wanted to avoid any reference to Yolngu ancestral histories in the design of the buildings because they saw non-Indigenous architecture as just that – a non-Indigenous initiative or imposition’ (Fantin 2003).

Furthermore, Fantin references Carroll Go-Sam’s comment that “story places of

ancestors are about country, divisions, boundaries, ownership and being caretakers for country – if you put it in a building it is disenfranchised” (2003). From these experiences, architects can understand the importance to actively listening to their clients, Indigenous or not but especially for their Indigenous clients so as to not contribute to the ‘recurring colonial threats’ (Huggan 1997: 20).

CHAPTER 2 This chapter consists of two case studies, two Cultural Centres by award winning non-Indigenous Australian architect, Gregory Burgess. This chapter studies the significance these buildings have as being one of the first buildings which had the intent of representing and translating Aboriginal culture specific to the land of which it is situated. An interesting critique which is kept in mind through this chapter is the fact that Burgess has a particular style which is replicated through both designs, despite the cultural difference between the two groups of Aboriginal people. It is still worth noting however that Burgess was chosen by the client to guide the project due to his design process and style. In this way, the client is still choosing how they are represented.

These issues will be explored first through a description of the building and its significance to the post-colonial context. The relevant Aboriginal culture will be explored to shed some light on the significance of the land on which the building is situated. Next, the intended usage of the building will be discussed. This is important to understand the context that these buildings are intended to not only give Aboriginal people a chance to put forward their own identity, but also provide a platform for nonIndigenous to actively foster the Aboriginal community share their knowledge and culture through their traditional methods. Lastly, critique from the architectural field will be brought forward to discuss how these ideas have resonated with people of other nationalities. There are limited Indigenous sources for architectural critique. This may be due to the fact it was still quite early on in Australiaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s official acknowledgment of Aboriginal heritage and there may not be many people with an Indigenous cultural background that have had access and the opportunity to contribute in this academic content.

ULURU-KATA TJUTA ABORIGINAL CULTURAL CENTRE [Pitjantjatjara and Yankunyjtatjara land]â&#x20AC;&#x2030; The Uluru-Kata Tjuta Aboriginal Cultural Centre (UKTACC), Northern Territory (1995) was one of the first buildings built for Aboriginal people which had the intent of

understanding and translating a level of Aboriginal culture (specific to place) in physical form (Mallie 2009). The cultural centre is located on Pitjantjatjara25 and Yankunyjtatjara26 land of which the Anangu27 people carry out their custodianship according to Tjukurpa28 (AIATSIS 2019). The landmarks, Uluru29 and Kata Tjuta30 holds a strong spiritual and cultural significance to the Anangu. For the Anangu, these sites represent ancestral beings, who ‘travelled across the lands in a process of formation and destruction that gave rise to the existing landscapes’ and it is believed that these formations are still inhabited by Tjukuritja31 (AIATSIS 2019). As such, they are one of the most sacred of places which are always shown respect by the Anangu (AIATSIS 2019). It was therefore had many emotional and spiritual repercussions for the Anangu people when the first Europeans ‘discovered’ the formations and climbed the sites. From the 1870’s to the end of the 1970’s European settlers claimed these sacred sites as their own by commercialising and advertising them as tourist destinations and then declaring them under the ownership of the Government (Ayers Rock Resort 2019). Today, ‘these iconic sites attract four hundred thousand visitors per year’ (Pieris 2016). Given this history, the cultural centre stands for more than just a building which facilitates cultural activities, the centre is used to assert their rights to the land and re-inscribe the site as an Aboriginal cultural space. The Centre educates Minga32 or visitors into Anangu ways, mediating their perceptions and behaviours of the landscape within a shared cultural ethos (Pieris 2016: 262).

The initial brief for this project was developed by Australian architect Paul Pholeros in 1990 and required that the design ‘provide a national focus on Indigenous social and cultural issues contextualised within a wider cultural context which will resonate a powerful Indigenous essence’ (Pieris 2016, Memmott, P., Reser, J 2000: 69). In the same year, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC) was 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32

Refer Refer Refer Refer Refer Refer Refer Refer

to to to to to to to to

appendix appendix appendix appendix appendix appendix appendix appendix

a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a,

item item item item item item item item

5 6 4 7 1 2 8 9

established, followed by many other public acknowledgments towards a Reconciled Australia (Korff 2019). Much of the centres participatory design process was conducted during a month long collaborative process on site between the Mutitjulu33 community and the Australian Nature Conservation Agency (ANCA) as a joint client, Australian architect Gregory Burgess, German display designer Sonja Peter and Australian landscape architects Kevin Taylor and Kate Cullity (Tawa 1996). It was during this collaborative process that the Anangu brought their stories of the land to the design team and passed on ‘story of a battle between Liru, the poisonous snake, and Kunya, the carpet snake’ which became the inspiration for the ‘two serpentine buildings’, see figure 2.3 (Pieris 2016; 2 65 , Tawa 1996).

Architect Michael Tawa’s review (1996) is structured to reflect the Anangu’s brief/ intent for the centre by breaking the review down into six criteria which diverge from traditional Western architectural principles. Tawa begins each section of his critique with an explanation of the intent spoken by the Anangu people. In this way, he attempts to disrupt traditional architectural discourse which represented only a Eurocentric and Anglicized structure. Tawa also reviews the UKTACC through the lens of the Anangu, often drawing relations between Anangu culture and how it has been ‘distilled, expressed and realised in architectural form’ (1996, Memmot, Reser 2000: 70). When describing the dialogue between architectural form and Anangu culture, Tawa shares that ‘Anangu country is known by being walked and spoken... the circuitous rhythms of walking dune country - between meandering contours and undulations of surprising scale - change continuously... without horizon or vantage...’

Tawa shows Burgess acknowledgment of Anangu culture through both the images of the undulating roof which seems to blur the horizon and extend to its surrounding landscape and the poetic way in which he describes the buildings as ‘the snakes Liru and Kuniya watching each other warily across the open field of a battleground’ (Tawa 1997). Through the extensive method of participatory design which was specifically adopted to 33

Refer to appendix a, item 3

‘listen’ and observe the Anangu culture, Gregory Burgess Architects designed a cultural centre which extends the language of the land into built form, creating a functional meeting point for Anangu to teach Minga their culture and foster pride within the Aboriginal community.

BRAMBUK LIVING CULTURAL CENTRE [Jardwadjali + Djab Wurrung Land] Along a similar vein to the UKTACC, the Brambuk Living Cultural Centre (BLCC), Victoria (1990) was one of the pioneering ‘Aboriginal’ buildings within Australia’s post colonial context. Situated in the Grampians National Park about three and a half hours drive north-west from Melbourne, the BLCC sits nestled between the mountain peaks of Mount William and Wonderland Ranges (Mallie 2009: 96). The chosen location of the cultural centre to be ‘in the heart of Gariwerd’ speaks volumes to its ‘significance to Aboriginal communities because the National Park has over 2/3 of all Aboriginal rock art sites in Victoria. These rock art sites, in conjunction with earth mounds, fish traps, scarred trees and stone quarries provide an abundance of local Aboriginal cultural heritage’ (Mallie 2009 p96).

Due to its vast range and number of physical examples of local Aboriginal culture, the site is a great location for teaching and sharing Aboriginal culture, heritage and environment. Additionally, as Gariwerd34 has retained many of its local landmarks and sacred sites from colonisation, it holds a significance Aboriginal presence. The design of the BLCC was envisaged to ‘improve public appreciation and education’ of Koori culture (Mallie 2009: 97). As with UKTACC, a big part of the early Aboriginal buildings create a dialogue between Indigenous and non-Indigenous. As discussed in chapter one, Fanon and Sartre’s theories on racial oppression is created through the ‘West’ creating the ‘rest’ which fosters negative perceptions of the ‘other’. Burgess’s buildings actively design for a shared platform which theoretically breaks the cycle of perceptions of ‘other’.

Along with expressing Aboriginal identity, Rory Spence, an architectural historian and critic, observed that the BLCC 34

Koorie name for the Grampian mountain ranges

‘is a living cultural centre, not a museum. It is intended to develop pride in Aboriginality, provide employment for Aborigines, present an Aboriginal perspective, and establish a meeting place for Aborigines and the rest of the community’ (cited in Mallie 2009: 114).

Mallie mentions many topics surrounding Aboriginality, especially in relation to its colonial past but also heavily focused on developing a better and healthier future in which Aboriginality is celebrated and the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous is closing.

Through an almost identical process as the UKTACC, the BLCC had joint clients of the Department of Conservation and Environment and the Koori communities surrounding the area. The design brief set forward was to ‘provide a focus for the history and culture of the local Djab Wurrung and Jardwadjali Aboriginal peoples’ (Mallie 2009: 97). This was achieved through the representation of the Djab Wurrung’s35 and Jardwadjali’s36 animal totem, the cockatoo as the large roof structure, see figure 2.4 (Burgess 2019). The roof has been described by many critiques as ‘undulating’ which almost appears to take flight through the valley (Mallie 2009: 100). Mallie continues to illustrate the visual similarities by comparing the ‘alternating shades of red... on the corrugated metal roofing’ as a reflection of ‘the overlapping nature and texture of a bird’s feathers or alternatively the shell of a beetle’ which is another animal totem known within the Koori community, see figure 2.2 (Mallie 2009: 100). Additionally, the roof has also been said to reflect the rolling mountains and ‘concentrate and extent the powerful surrounding landscape’ and ‘symbolically merging man with nature’(Mallie 2009: 105, Burgess 2019). As Mallie has alluded to, Burgess was able to incorporate many meanings which are significant to each of the Aboriginal communities which acts as a powerful gesture of acknowledging that each community is different and is not to be painted over with the same brush. Additionally to the visual references, Burgess planned the spatial strategy of the floor plan to represent the five Koori community groups that formed the client, see figure 2.6. 35 36

Traditional Aboriginal group of the Gariwerd area Traditional Aboriginal group of the Gariwerd area

Despite the pioneering context of this building, there are some valid points of discussion surrounding the design which further question how Aboriginality is conceived and received by people of other nationalities. In Kim Dovey’s 1996 article, Architecture for the Aborigines, an important discussion [which he attributes to the work of Mathilde Lochert’s 1994 thesis] regarding the significance of how an audience’s preconception informs their reception of ideas is raised using the BLCC as a key example. Dovey states ‘The building is said to reinforce a construction of Aboriginal people as primitive, natural and irregular. This critique has sources in post-colonial theory which suggest that in such a power structure, the native ‘other’ finds a voice only within the framework of a dominant discourse.’ (1996).

Despite the design intent from the clients and the architect, the significance of the building may still be falling on deaf ears for majority of Australia’s non-Indigenous population due to their preconceived ideas about Aboriginal culture. With much of the work being based on a literal visual representation of Aboriginal animal totems and use of natural/raw materials, it could be immediately confirming that preconception held by non-Indigenous people who may not understand the significance of these symbols. It could also be said that by taking the spirit of the totem or sacred site by replicating it within a man-made structure, it is disingenuous or takes away from the significance of the original spirit of the animal or land. Another critique by Indigenous architect, Tara Mallie in her 2009 thesis, questions how much of the design of BLCC came from the Koori people and how much was simply Burgess’s usual architectural style, see figures 2.1 to 2.8. Mallie notes that ‘many of Burgess’s designs have curved walls in plan, undulating roof forms

and use natural materials regardless of whether they are for Aboriginal or non-Aboriginal clients. This may suggest that the buildings’ actual source of inspiration are not the local Aboriginal peoples’ totems or site conditions, but rather they are simply the architect’s usual approach to design; an approach which just happens to posses a certain sympathy with the land’. (2009: 107)

In spite of this coincidence, it is essential to acknowledge that the more important factor, in light of its 1990 Australian context, is that the Aboriginal client group selected Burgess for his architectural style among other things. The act of deliberately aligning

their identity and intentions with an architect such as Burgess who was recognised as one of Australia’s principle architects, can act as a powerful statement in wanting to adopt certain attributes or perceptions (Mallie 2009).

In conclusion, Gregory Burgess’s architectural style and design process were well suited to the brief for the UKTACC and BLCC as one of the main intentions was in representing their respective Aboriginal cultural groups. Burgess’s architectural style is often described as vernacular and undulating in form with strong usage of natural and raw materials. The client groups for both buildings specified either directly or indirectly that this style was preferable. Burgess’s known method of participatory design and extensive client consultation was also a high priority for his candidature. Despite some critiques noting that Burgess’s style may have been coincidently aligned with Aboriginal culture and not due to Burgess’s participatory design method, it is important to note that it was precisely for these reasons that he was chosen help express their representation of identity in architectural form.

CHAPTER 2 : Illustrations

Figure 2.1 View of Uluru Kata-Tjuta Aboriginal Cultural Centre roof, 1995, Gregory Burgess Architects, Northern Territory, Gregory Burgess, < http://www.gbarch.com.au/ projects/1995/uluru-kata-tjuta-cultural-centre/>

Figure 2.2 View of Brambruk Living Cultural Centre roof, 1990, Gregory Burgess Architects, Victoria, Gregory Burgess, < http://www.gbarch.com.au/projects/1990/ brambuk-living-cultural-centre/>

Figure 2.3 Aerial view of Uluru Kata-Tjuta Aboriginal Cultural Centre, 1995, Gregory Burgess Architects, Northern Territory, Gregory Burgess, < http://www.gbarch. com.au/projects/1995/uluru-kata-tjuta-cultural-centre/>, edited by author

Figure 2.4 Front elevation of Brambruk Living Cultural Centre, 1990, Gregory Burgess Architects, Victoria, Gregory Burgess, < http://www.gbarch.com.au/ projects/1990/brambuk-living-cultural-centre/>, edited by author

Figure 2.5 Floor plan of Uluru Kata-Tjuta Aboriginal Cultural Centre, 1995, Gregory Burgess Architects, Northern Territory, Gregory Burgess, < http://www.gbarch.com.au/ projects/1995/uluru-kata-tjuta-cultural-centre/>

Figure 2.6 Floor plan of Brambruk Living Cultural Centre, 1990, Gregory Burgess Architects, Victoria, Gregory Burgess, < http://www.gbarch.com.au/projects/1990/ brambuk-living-cultural-centre/>

Figure 2.7 Section of Uluru Kata-Tjuta Aboriginal Cultural Centre, 1995, Gregory Burgess Architects, Northern Territory, Gregory Burgess, < http://www.gbarch.com.au/ projects/1995/uluru-kata-tjuta-cultural-centre/>

Figure 2.8 Section of Brambruk Living Cultural Centre, 1990, Gregory Burgess Architects, Victoria, Gregory Burgess, < http://www.gbarch.com.au/projects/1990/ brambuk-living-cultural-centre/>

CHAPTER 3 This chapter looks at two contemporary examples that were inspired by Aboriginal culture and the discourse surrounding Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australia. One of the main discussions in this chapter questions how ARM Architecture have used Aboriginal culture and its surrounding discourse without any Aboriginal community as a stakeholder or client. Questions of Aboriginal authorisation, authenticity and possible effects on general public perception of Aboriginal culture are explored through case studies of ARM Architect’s Barak Building in Melbourne and the National Museum of Australia (NMA) and the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies (AIATSIS) in the Canberra.

Where chapter two focused more on the symbolic representation of identity of the relevant Indigenous peoples, the case studies of this chapter discuss the controversial discourse of post colonial Australia and suggests the theoretical decolonisation of Aboriginal Australians by bringing the discourse into the centre of metropolitan conversation.

The case studies first introduce the scope of the building which includes discussing the clients and the fact that the clients are not the Aboriginal community on which the building is situated on. This is followed by a discussion of authorisation of Aboriginal ‘content’ for use as visual representation and by whom the authorisation was given. Secondly, the location of both buildings is discussed as they are one of the first and most well known examples of Aboriginal buildings in Australia’s metropolitan cities. The impact of this is discussed as it breaks the cycle of the common association with Aboriginal culture to the desert or rural areas of Australia. Additionally, the authenticity of Aboriginal representation is questioned as many argue that neither building retain a strong connection to land, therefore questioning the validity of its Aboriginality. Following a similar vein to chapter two, the architect’s ‘style’ also introduces uncertainty as to how much is simply the architect’s agenda and how much is a response to the client’s need. Architectural critiques are then examined to demonstrate the ongoing

dialogue that occurs between Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities. And lastly a discussion on the Indigenous significance is explored. This is especially significant both buildings do not have an Indigenous group as their client but both use Indigenous symbolism in their design and concept. How that resonates with Indigenous and nonIndigenous communities and the discourses which are created as a result all contribute to the future theoretical decolonisation of Australia.

BARAK BUILDING/PORTRAIT [Wurundjeri-William Land] The unveiling of the Barak Building (2015) in Melbourne’s CBD was an event which caused much controversy through the architectural world and the general Australian public. Designed by ARM Architecture, an Australian firm known for their ‘architectural outspokenness’, the Barak building had the potential to be of high impact on 21st century metropolitan Australia (Rattenbury, K., Bevan, R. & Long, K., 2004: 20). In striking comparison to the function and clientele of the Gregory Burgess’s buildings in chapter three, this building is a thirty-two storey luxury apartment block with one of Australia’s largest privately owned developers, Grocon, as the client. Despite this context traditionally facilitating cookie cutter luxury buildings for Australia’s elite, which so happens to be dominated by an Anglo-Saxon demographic [a tribute to England’s colonial legacy], ARM Architecture took this opportunity to go against the grain and force the metropolitan community to acknowledge its colonial past and its repercussions which can still be felt today. The main cause of this controversy among predominately non-Indigenous architectural critics is the visual (re)presentation of the face of William Barak, who was the ngurungaeta25 of the Wurundjeri clan and the use of braille as an embellishment on the facade of the buildings carpark, see figure 3.1 and 3.3 (Koorie Heritage Trust n.d., VACL 2019). Christine Hansen’s The Conversation article (2015) condemned the building on the basis that it was a ‘cruel juxtaposition’ and a ‘backhanded tribute’ to the memory of William Barak and ‘the entire Kulin nation [for] the struggle over land’. It is interesting to note that Barak’s own great granddaughter, who is also a Wurundjeri elder, Doreen Gavey-Wandin, was in full support of Barak’s 25 meaning ‘clan leader’ in the Woi wurrung language shared by the four Koorie clans of the Port Philip region

representation, and even questioned reporter Evonne Barry in her 2010 article, ‘So why shouldn’t he be recognised? Why shouldn’t his head be up there over everybody else’s, protecting the Wurundjeri territory, which he fought for, for many years.’

Barry goes on in her article to note that the plans have been welcomed by the Wurundjeri elders and ‘has been a long time coming’ (2010).

Timmah Ball, an Indigenous writer for the newspaper Assemble Papers, wrote in her 2015 article Remember Me: architecture, placemaking and Aboriginal identity of her support for the significant and iconic representation, acting as a highly publicised icon which initiates conversation and takes a big stand on some taboo issues. In light of this however, Ball also warns that this type of literal and stylised type of Aboriginal architecture is not a one size fits all and should be considered carefully before architects follow in its footsteps (Ball 2015).

William Barak (1823 - 1903), born by the name Beruk was a key figure in both Aboriginal and non-Indigenous communities of Melbourne during the white settlement of Australia (Nanni, James 2013: 84). As well as the role of ngurungaeta, Barak was also a skilled and reputable artist, diplomat and cultural ambassador, storyteller, and native police trooper (Culture Victoria 2016). Barak was one of the few Aboriginal people who was brought up in traditional Wurundjeri culture prior to British settlement and also lived through the ‘birth and growth of the city of Melbourne; the surge of half a million newcomers in search of gold, the equally rapid reduction of the Kulin population, and the containment of the survivors on a handful of missions and government reserves’ (Nanni, G., James, A 2013 :85).

Through this ‘tsunami of colonisation’, Barak ‘became an active participant and an agent for change’, fighting for the rights of his people and becoming a significant advocate for a cross-cultural community ( Hansen 2015, Nanni, James, 2013: 85).

Like Gregory Burgess, there are many architectural characteristics and styles that are recurrent for ARM Architecture. Linda Cheng points out in her 2015 article for

ArchitectureAU, that the method of using a ‘xylographic technique’ to form a pattern with the ‘3D molded panels for the balustrades’ was tried and tested on their 2007 Dupain building in Sydney’s Darling Harbour. As seen in figure 3.5 and 3.6, the bitmap line drawing of Max Dupain’s (1911-1992) famous Form at Bondi (1939) photograph is wrapped around the facade of the office block. Additionally, th use of braille, which spells out “Wurundjeri I am who I am”, in reference to the Aboriginal Australian context was first seen in their 2001 design for the National Museum of Australia in Canberra which will be discussed in further detail in the next case study, see figure 3.4. While some argued that Burgess’s style of vernacular forms and use of raw materials was coincidently appropriate for their Indigenous clients, ARM Architecture’s style goes unquestioned as it serves a purpose to be distinct and fearless in its message, using both image and braille. Another of ARM Architecture’s trademarks is the incorporation of axis to connect their building to other points of interest, thus lending further meaning and significance to their own design. As seen in figure 3.7, the main axis connects the building to the Shrine of Remembrance, which coincidently was also designed by ARM Architecture in their 2003 and 2014 redevelopment, located approximately 2.8km away at the southern end of the Swanston St axis. It is also at this point that Barak’s portrait can be seen the clearest. The Shrine of Remembrance is the National War Memorial of Victoria and commemorates the men and women who have served in war for the protection of Australia (Shrine of Remembrance 2011). Given this significance, it could be said that this axis symbolically represents the two way dialogue between Aboriginal Australians and non-Indigenous Australians. It could also be said that the positioning of the portrait and the clear visual axis down Swanston St, allows William Barak to continue his work in protecting his people and acting as a platform for cross-cultural discourse.

ARM Architecture’s decision to feature Barak’s image on their building not only acknowledges the traditional owners of the land on which it is situated and symbolically reclaims their land through presence but also makes a bold statement that Australian

society still has a long way to go in righting the wrongs of its past.

AUSTRALIAN INSTITUTE OF ABORIGINAL AND TORRES STRAIT ISLANDER STUDIES AND NATIONAL MUSEUM OF AUSTRALIA [Ngambri Land] The National Museum of Australia (NMA) and the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies (AIATSIS) was the ‘first museum of its kind in Australia’ that had the express intent of addressing its full history and acknowledging its many fragments and threads (Pieris 2016: 26). While ARM Architecture’s Portrait building served as a catalyst for discussion while also addressing the Indigenous people of the land on which it was situated on, the NMA and AIATSIS does the former but with a generalised Aboriginal client representation.

This generalised approach is reflective of the client, the Commonwealth of Australia. As the national governing authority, it would be seen as unethical and politically incorrect if one group was favoured above others. Therefore the representation of Aboriginal Australian culture and history had to be generalised in a sense. As a result, the discourses which are explored through built form in these buildings differ from those explored in chapter two and the Barak building.

The design intent for the museum was to reflect ‘a shared history’ of Australia (McGaw 2015:171). Through the exhibits, ‘visitors would encounter contact period histories’ illustrated through ‘multimedia presentations of the experiences of ordinary people’ (McGaw 2015: 171). ARM’s interpretation of this intent resulted in a strategy combining ‘programme, aesthetics and politics’ (McGaw 2015: 171). It is said that the post-modern structure ‘reflects the diversity of the museum’s collection’ and in doing so, avoids ‘traditional museum interpretations’ (National Museum of Australia n.d.).

As discussed in the Portrait building, ARM often employ the use of axis to lend deeper

meaning to their own design and to respond to the sites context and surrounding. The NMA and AIATSIS’s design does not fall short of this trait by designing a large swooping spiral which is sprawled across the site. ARM titled this the ‘Uluru line’, a raised sculptural strip which loops and symbolically connects the museum to UluruKata Tjuta, illustrated in figures 3.8 and 3.9 (ArchitectureAU 2001). Though this could be criticised for representing the Anangu people above even the Ngambri people on which the building is situated, it is more likely that this reference was chosen to reflect Canberra’s city planing by Walter Burley Griffin and the axis which he created through major pathways which symbolically link Australia’s states and territories to its parliamentary heart (Dove, S 2009). In this case, ARM links Australia’s National museum to the country’s iconic heart (ArchitectureAU 2001).

This lending of meaning, and identity to a certain extent, is even more apparent with ARM’s unmistakable replication of many of the worlds most iconic buildings (Sudjic 2001). Perhaps the most shocking is the replication of ‘Daniel Libeskind’s celebrated museum of Jewish history in Berlin’ (Sudjic 2001). In Deyan Sudjic’s 2010 article for The Guardian, he notes that the ‘plan is an exact copy of the lightning-flash zigzag that Libeskind created by breaking a five-pointed star of David, except that Howard Raggatt [one of the founding members] prefers to call it a quotation rather than a copy’, see figures 3.12 and 3.13. He later evidences the architectural worlds shock at this blatant replica by noting that David Libeskind himself commented that ‘it’s shocking, banal and plagiarism’. ARM’s ‘strategy’ in creating the simile was indeed a bold statement to make especially in light of Australia’s political context at the time with the then Prime Minister, John Howard, refusing to apologise on ‘behalf of white Australia to the Aboriginals for their maltreatment’ (Sudjic 2001). ARM’s statement not only liken the horrors of colonial settlement of Aboriginal land to that of the Holocaust, but it also makes plain their view that the same level of respect, sensitivity and, importance should be given to the discourses associated with this history. Adding to this replica is Le Corbusier’s (1887-1965) Villa Savoye, France (1929),

see figures 3.10 and 3.11 (Pieris 2016: 32). Pieris describes ARM’s replica of Le Corbusier’s finest work as a challenge to ‘Le Corbusier’s iconic modernist aesthetic’s architectural “rescue of the noble savage”’, a comment which references the celebrity architect’s work in post-colonial India (2016: 32). ARM further justify this replication in that their intention was to design ‘a pre-existing building re-occupied for the [AIATSIS’s] purpose’, an idea which took inspiration from the one-time Bank Building in Gertrude St, Melbourne (1880) which was painted over with the Aboriginal flag upon their occupation of the building (Raggatt 2001). Adding to their list of politically charged statements, ARM also decorated one of the building facades with their iconic braille, spelling out ‘sorry’ and ‘forgive us our genocide’ as seen in figure 3.4, which was a sharp jab at PM John Howard for his refusal to acknowledge and apologise to Aboriginal Australian’s (McGaw 2015: 171).

In similarity to ARM’s Portrait building, there is a general consensus among critics that despite the bold controversial statements made, these designs are perhaps needed to achieve a better Australia and that ‘it’s not how the building looks that counts for once, but what it is saying’ (Sudjic 2001). Where the cultural elements from Burgess’s buildings were drawn from the local cultural group which had a strong emphasis on the building functioning as representation of identity, ARM’s represented both local and pan-Aboriginal identities but focused more on representing the discourse around Aboriginal culture. Both representations addressed their briefs and are integral to the theoretical decolonisation of Aboriginal Australians.

CHAPTER 3: Illustrations W

E S

Figure 3.1 View of Barak building from Swanston St axis, 2015, ARM Architecture, Melbourne, Peter Bennetts, < https://theconversation.com/melbournes-new-williambarak-building-is-a-cruel-juxtaposition-38983>

Figure 3.3 View of Barak building carpark braille facade, 2015, ARM Architecture, Melbourne, ARM Architecture, <https://armarchitecture.com.au/projects/barak-building/>

Figure 3.4 View of National Museum of Australia braille roof, 2001, ARM Architecture, Canberra, ARM Architecture, < https://armarchitecture.com.au/projects/ national-museum-of-australia/>

N W

W SN

SN W

E S

Figure 3.5 Photograph Form at Bondi,1939, Max Dupain, Sydney, < https://www.artgallery.nsw.gov.au/collection/ works/186.1981/?>

E S

Figure 3.6 View of office block facade, 2005, ARM Architecture, Sydney, Piotr Czaja, < http://www.bryla.pl/ bryla/56,85298,20522602,Jeszcze_inspiracja_czy_juz_ kopia_Gdzie_zaczyna_sie.html>

Figure 3.7 Map of Melbourne CBD, Swanston St axis highlighted in red, 2019, Author

N W

W S

Figure 3.8 Map of South West Australia showing Uluru and National Museum of Australia axis, 2019, Google Maps, < https://www.google.com.au/maps>, edited by author

Figure 3.9 Aerial view of National Museum of Australia, 2001, ARM Architecture, Canberra, Google Maps, < https://www.google.com.au/maps>, edited by author

N W

Figure 3.10 Exterior elevation of Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies, 2001, ARM Architecture, Canberra, Anoma Pieris 2013, < https:// N ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/unsw/detail.action?docID=4525004>

E S

Figure 3.11 Exterior elevation of Villa Savoye, 1929, Le Corbusier, Poissy, Joelix.com, < https://www.joelix.com/ Villa-Savoye-by-Le-Corbusier>

E S

Figure 3.12 Aerial view of National Museum of Australia, Figure 3.13 Aeirial view of Jewish Museum, 2001, Daniel 2001, ARM Architecture, Canberra, Google Maps, < https:// Libeskind, Berlin, Guenter Schneider, < https://www10. www.google.com.au/maps>, edited by author aeccafe.com/blogs/arch-showcase/2012/04/27/jewish-museum-berlin-in-germany-by-studio-daniel-libeskind/>

CONCLUSION Through this dissertation, the representation of Aboriginal identity by non-Aboriginal architects has been discussed through the theoretical exploration of post-colonial and neo-colonial theory and an in-depth case study of four Aboriginal buildings by two nonIndigenous Australian architects.

To provide some context to this study and investigate some of the continued effects of colonialism on Indigenous Australian communities, Robert J.C. Young’s book Postcolonialism: an historical introduction (2001) is used as the main source to define neo-colonialism. Additionally, Cedric Wyatt’s publication, Aboriginal people: Addressing dependency in Australia (1997), explored some of the recorded and quantifiable effects of colonialism and neo-colonialism on Indigenous communities. The theories developed by Frantz Fanon (1925-1961), Antonio Gramsci (1891-1937) and Edward Said (1935 2003) on colonialism, cultural hegemony and racism (respectively), formed a significant contextual basis of this study. Paul Memmott’s and Joseph Reser’s paper, Design concepts and processes for public Aboriginal architecture (2001), briefly discussed the challenges of designing Aboriginal architecture as a non-Aboriginal architect then explored methods and strategies which could be used to achieve a culturally sensitive, ‘authentic’ and appropriate design resolution which achieves a level of Aboriginal identity.

In an in-depth investigation of the above mentioned theories, chapter two consisted of two case studies of cultural centres by award winning non-Indigenous Australian architect, Gregory Burgess. The significance of these buildings as being one of the first buildings which had the intent of representing and translating Aboriginal culture specific to the land of which it is situated is explored. The most prominent critique from architects and writers was that Burgess’s architectural style may have been coincidently reflective of Aboriginal culture and the buildings may not have been inspired significantly by the local Aboriginal group. It is noted however that one of

the reasons Burgess was selected by the local Aboriginal groups was for his style and known design process. The case studies are introduced with a description of the building and its significance to the post-colonial context. The relevant Aboriginal culture is explored to shed some light on the significance of the land on which the building is situated. Next, the intended usage of the building is discussed to understand the context that these buildings are intended to not only give Aboriginal people a chance to put forward their own identity, but also provide a platform for non-Indigenous to actively foster the Aboriginal community share their knowledge and culture through their traditional methods. Lastly, critique from the architectural field is brought forward to discuss how these ideas have resonated with people of other nationalities.

Chapter three concludes this dissertation with case studies of two contemporary examples that were inspired by Aboriginal culture and the discourse surrounding Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australia. One of the main discussions in this chapter questions how ARM Architecture have used Aboriginal culture and its surrounding discourse without any Aboriginal community as a stakeholder or client. Questions of Aboriginal authorisation, authenticity and possible effects on general public perception of Aboriginal culture are explored through case studies. Where chapter two focused more on the symbolic representation of identity of the relevant Indigenous peoples, the case studies of chapter three discussed the controversial discourse of post-colonial Australia and suggested the theoretical decolonisation of Aboriginal Australians by bringing the discourse into the centre of metropolitan conversation. The case studies first introduced the scope of the building which includes discussing the clients and the fact that the clients are not the Aboriginal community on which the building is situated on. This was followed by a discussion of authorisation of Aboriginal â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;contentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; for use as visual representation and by whom the authorisation was given. Secondly, the location of both buildings was discussed as they are one of the first and most well known examples of Aboriginal buildings in Australiaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s metropolitan cities. The impact of this was discussed as it breaks the cycle of the common association with Aboriginal culture

to the desert or rural areas of Australia. Additionally, the authenticity of Aboriginal representation was questioned as many argue that neither building retained a strong connection to land, therefore questioning the validity of its Aboriginality. Following a similar vein to chapter two, the architect’s ‘style’ also introduces uncertainty as to how much is simply the architect’s agenda and how much is a response to the client’s need. Architectural critiques were then examined to demonstrate the ongoing dialogue that occurs between Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities. And lastly a discussion on the Indigenous significance was explored. This was especially significant as both buildings do not have an Indigenous group as their client but both use Indigenous symbolism in their design and concept. How that resonates with Indigenous and nonIndigenous communities and the discourses which are created as a result all contribute to the future theoretical decolonisation of Australia.

LIST OF REFERENCES Altbach, P.G. 1971, ‘Education and Neocolonialism: a note’, Comparative Education Review, Vol. 15, No. 2, p. 237-239, accessed 20 Mar 2019 from The University of Chicago Press Journals

‘Australian Baroque’, ArchitectureAU, 1 Mar 2001 Vol. 90. No. 2, accessed 20 Apr 2019, <https://architectureau.com/articles/australian-baroque/>

Australian Government n.d., Federation, accessed 22 May 2019, < https://www. australia.gov.au/about-government/how-government-works/federation>

Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies (AIATSIS) 2019, Australian Government, accessed 11 Apr 2019, <https://aiatsis.gov.au/exhibitions/ tjukurpa>

Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies (AIATSIS) 2019, Australian Government, accessed 11 Apr 2019, <https://aiatsis.gov.au/exhibitions/ mutitjulu-community>

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare 2018, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Performance Framework (HPF) Report, Australian Government, accessed 22 May 2019, < https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/indigenous-health-welfare/healthperformance-framework/contents/overview>

Ball. T. 2015, ‘Remember Me: architecture, placemaking and Aboriginal Identity’, 28 Apr 2015, Assemble Papers, <https://assemblepapers.com.au/2015/05/28/remember-mearchitecture-placemaking-and-aboriginal-identity-2/>

Barry. E. 2010, ‘Building featuring portrait of indigenous leader to become Melbourne’s newest landmark’, 15 Sep 2010, news.com.au, <https://www.news.com.au/national/ apartment-building-featuring-portrait-of-aboriginal-leader-to-become-melbournesnewest-landmark/news-story/0e284aaa2c0d306372469128de1b682d>

Battiste, M 1998, ‘Enabling the Autumn Seed: toward a decolonized approach to aboriginal knowledge, language, and education’, Canadian Journal of Native Education, Vol. 22, No. 1, p. 16-27, accessed 20 Mar 2019 from ProQuest Central

Beerling, R.F 1955, ‘Power and Human Nature’, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, Vol. 16, No. 2, p. 214-222, accessed 20 Mar 2019 from JSTOR

Cheng, L. 2015, ‘About face: William Barak apartments’, ArchitectureAU, 6 Mar 2015, accessed 20 Apr 2019, <https://architectureau.com/articles/william-barak-apartments/>

Koorie Heritage Trust n.d., William Barak : King of the Yarra, Culture Victoria, accessed 8 May 2019, < https://cv.vic.gov.au/stories/aboriginal-culture/william-barak/williambarak-king-of-the-yarra/>

Dove, S 2009, Design inspirations behind the Museum building, National Museum of

Australia, transcript, accessed 10 May 2019, < https://www.nma.gov.au/>

Dow, A 2015, ‘William Barak apartment tower portrait revealed’, The Age, 3 Mar 2015, accessed 20 Apr 2019, <https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/william-barakapartment-tower-portrait-revealed-20150302-13t31e.html>

Fantin, S 2003, ‘Aboriginal identities in architecture’, ArchitectureAU, 1 Sep 2003 Vol. 92 No. 5, accessed 21 Mar 2019, <https://architectureau.com/articles/aboriginalidentities-in-architecture/>

Gregory Burgess Architects 2019, accessed 11 Apr 2019, <http://www.gbarch.com.au/ projects/1995/uluru-kata-tjuta-cultural-centre/>

Haddour, A., Brewer, S., McWilliams, T. 2006, Colonialism and Neocolonialism, Routledge Classics, Abingdon (TRANSLATED FROM ORIGINAL TEXT ->Sartre, J. 1964, Situations V, Editions Gallimard, Paris)

Hall, S 1996, ‘Introduction: Who needs ‘identity’?’, Questions of Cultural Identity, SAGE Publications, e-book, accessed 22 Mar 2019 from ProQuest Ebook Central

Hansen, C. 2015, ‘Melbourne’s new William Barak building is a cruel juxtaposition’, The Conversation, 19 Mar 2015, accessed 20 Apr 2019, <https://theconversation.com/ melbournes-new-william-barak-building-is-a-cruel-juxtaposition-38983>

Harris, J. 2003, ‘Hiding the bodies: the myth of the humane colonisation of Aboriginal Australia’, Aboriginal History Journal, Vol. 27, accessed 10 May 2019, < http://pressfiles.anu.edu.au/downloads/press/p73641/pdf/ch0550.pdf>

Hirst, P. 2005, Space and Power: politics, war and architecture, Polity Press, Cambridge

Huggan, G 1997, ‘The Neocolonialism of Postcolonialism: a cautionary note’, Links & Letters, Vol. 4, p. 19-24, accessed 22 Mar 2019, <https://core.ac.uk/download/ pdf/13278810.pdf>

Jackson. D 1998, ‘The Politics’, 1 Jan 1998, Museum of Australia Vol. 87 No. 1, ArchitectureAU, <https://architectureau.com/articles/museum-of-australia/>

Johanson, S., Dowling. J. 2010, ‘New face of Melbourne rises 32 storeys’, The Age, 15 Sep 2010, accessed 20 Apr 2019, <https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/newface-of-melbourne-rises-32-storeys-20100914-15axh.html>

Jones, S. 2006, Antonio Gramsci, Routledge, Abingdon

Keniger. M. 1998, ‘The Final Schemes’, 1 Jan 1998, Museum of Australia Vol. 87 No. 1, ArchitectureAU, <https://architectureau.com/articles/museum-of-australia/>

Korff, J 2019, ‘What you need to know about reconciliation’, accessed 11 April 2019,

<https://www.creativespirits.info/aboriginalculture/people/what-you-need-to-knowabout-reconciliation>

Korff, J 2019, ‘Aboriginal population in Australia’, accessed 10 May 2019, <https://www. creativespirits.info/aboriginalculture/people/aboriginal-population-in-australia>,

Lord. K. 2010, ‘Aboriginal leader’s face to gaze from high-rise’, 16 Sep 2010, ABC, <https://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-09-15/aboriginal-leaders-face-to-gaze-from-highrise/2261946>

Mallie, T 2009, ‘Questioning “Authentic” Aboriginal Architecture: An analysis of recent cultural centre design’, MA thesis, University of Newcastle

Maldonado-Torres, N. 2017, ‘Frantz Fanon and the decolonial turn in psychology: from modern/colonial methods to the decolonial attitude’, South African Journal of Psychology, Vol. 47, No. 4, p. 432-441, accessed 20 Mar 2019 from SAGE Journals

Markmann, C.L. 1967, Black Skin White Masks, Grove Press, New York (TRANSLATED FROM ORIGINAL TEXT -> Fanon, F. 1952, Peau Noire, Masques Blancs, Editions de Seuil)

Memmott, P. C., Reser, J. 2000, ‘Design concepts and processes for public Aboriginal architecture’, 11th Conference on People Physical Environment Research, University of Sydney, NSW, 3-6 December, 1998. Sydney: PAPER

McGaw, J & Pieris, A 2015, Assembling the Centre: architecture for Indigenous cultures, Routledge, New York

Nanni, G., James, A. 2013, Coranderrk: we will show the country, Aboriginal Studies Press, Canberra

National Museum of Australia n.d, Our Building, Australian Government, accessed 10 May 2019, < https://www.nma.gov.au/visit-us/the-museum-building>

National Museum of Australia n.d., White Australia Policy, Australian Government, accessed 22 May 2019, < https://www.nma.gov.au/defining-moments/resources/whiteaustralia-policy>

Nkrumah, K. 1965, Neo-Colonialism, the last stage of imperialism, Zed Books, London

Parks Australia 2019, Australian Government, accessed 11 Apr 2019, <https:// parksaustralia.gov.au/uluru/do/cultural-centre/building/>

Parks Australia 2019, Australian Government, accessed 11 Apr 2019, <https:// parksaustralia.gov.au/uluru/discover/history/mutitjulu-community/>

Parks Australia, Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park Fact Sheet: Cultural Centre, Australian Government, accessed 11 Apr 2019, <https://parksaustralia.gov.au/uluru/pub/fs-

culturalcentre.pdf>

Pieris, A. 2016, Indigenous Cultural Centers and Museums: an illustrated international survey, Rowman & Littleefield Publishers, e-book, accessed 10 Apr 2019 from ProQuest Ebook Central

Raggatt. H. 2001, ‘Howard Raggatt Replies’, 1 Jul 2001 Letters and Fixes Vol, 90 No. 4, ArchitectureAU, <https://architectureau.com/articles/letters-and-fixes-6/>

Rattenbury, K., Bevan, R. & Long, K., 2004. Architects today, Laurence King Publishing, London

Rose, J., Wilson, M.O. 2017, ‘Changing the Subject: race and public space’, Artforum Internatoinal Magazine, Vol. 55, No. 10, 30 Mar 2019, <https://www.artforum.com/ print/201706/changing-the-subject-race-and-public-space-68687>

Sebag-Montefiore. C. 2016, ‘How can Indigenous Australia put its stamp on buildings in modern cities?’, 12 Feb 2016, The Guardian, <https://www.theguardian.com/ artanddesign/2016/feb/12/how-can-indigenous-australia-put-its-stamp-on-buildings-inmodern-cities>

Sedjic. D 2001, ‘Australia looks back in allegory at its inglorious past’, 4 Mar 2001, The Guardian, <https://www.theguardian.com/theobserver/2001/mar/04/featuresreview. review2>

Seligman, A.B., Wasserfall, R.R, Montgomery, D.W., 2015, Living with Difference: how to build community in a divided world, e-book, accessed 20 Mar 2019 from EBSCOhost eBooks Collection

Scott. T 2001, ‘NMA, AIATSIS and Consultation’, 1 Jul 2001 Letters and Fixes Vol, 90 No. 4, ArchitectureAU, <https://architectureau.com/articles/letters-and-fixes-6/>

Shrine of Remembrance 2011, Shrine of Remembrance Trustees, accessed 9 May 2019, < https://www.shrine.org.au/About-Us>

Spivak, G.C., Young, R.J.C, 1991, ‘Neocolonialism and the Secret Agent of Knowledge’, Oxford Literary Review, Vol. 13, No. 1/2, p. 220-251, accessed 22 Mar 2019 from JSTOR

Tawa, M. 1996, ‘Liru and Kuniya’, Architecture Australia, 1 Mar 1996 Vol. 85. No. 2, accessed 11 Apr 2019, <https://architectureau.com/articles/liru-and-kuniya/>

The Aboriginal History of Yarra 2013, Wurundjeri Welcome to Country” performed by Wurundjeri Elder, Colin Hunter Jr, video, accessed 20 Apr 2019, <https:// aboriginalhistoryofyarra.com.au/>

Vale, L.J. 1992, Architecture, Power, and National Identity, Yale University Press, London

Victorian Aboriginal Corporation for Languages (VACL) 2019, Australian Government Indigenous Languages and Arts, accessed 9 May 2019, < https://vaclang.org.au/ languages/woiwurrung.html>

Wyatt, C 1997, â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Aboriginal People: addressing dependency in Australiaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;, Social Policy Journal of New Zealand Te Puna Whakaaro, Iss. 08 March, accessed 22 May 2019, < https://www.msd.govt.nz/about-msd-and-our-work/publications-resources/journals-andmagazines/social-policy-journal/spj08/aborignal-people-addressing-dependency-inaustralia.html>

Young, R.J.C. 2001, Postcolonialism: an historical introduction, Blackwell Publishers, Great Britain

APPENDIX Appendix A: Appendix A is a list of translations of some key words specific to the Anangu people and are mentioned in Chapter 2 section â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Uluru-Kata Tjuta Aboriginal Cultural Centreâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; p.. These translations have been sourced from Parks Australia 2019. While this source was chosen because it is the managing agent for the cultural centre and the surrounding park, it is acknowledged that some meaning may be lost in translation. Legend (Parks Australia 2019): 1.

Uluru . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . [sacred place of knowledge for the Anangu people]

Kata Tjuta . . . . . . . . . . . [sacred site for Anangu men and holds many creation

stories. Ancient rock formation about 30km from Uluru] 3.

Mutitjulu . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[small Aboriginal community inside the boundary of

the Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park 4.

Anangu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . [term for Aboriginal people from the Western Desert

region in Pitjantjatjara and Yankunyjtatjara] 5.

Pitjantjatjara . . . . . . . . . .[one of the main dialects spoken in by the traditional

owners ] 6.

Yankunyjtatjara . . . . . . .[one of the main dialects spoken in by the traditional

owners ] 7.

Tjukurpa . . . . . . . . . . . . . [Anangu law = code which unites Anangu with their

landscape/place. Embodies the principles of law, religion, philosophy and human behaviour which need to be followed in order for people to live harmoniously with each other and the natural landscape] 8.

Tjukuritja . . . . . . . . . . . . .[spirit of ancestral beings]

Minga . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . [tourists]