Transcultural Place by Sarah Hadianti

TRANS N A R T CULTURAL PLACE

Sarah Hadianti

TRANS CULTURAL PLACE Thesis Seminar Book Fall 2015

Sarah Hadianti

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Preface: Thesis for Me

Statement: Transcultural Place

Position: Site, Program, User Objects: Explorations and Reflections

01_Identity Box

02_Multicultural Greetings

03_Relative Measurement

04_Home(s)

05_Window(s)

06_Door(s)

07_The Ground

PREFACE Thesis for Me My thesis is essentially a reflection of my current state in searching where to go next. In order to do so, I am looking back to where I have come from to where I am now. I was born and raised in Jakarta, the metropolis capital of Indonesia, but I can’t fully identify myself to being “Indonesian”. Outside Indonesia, I can confidently identify as an “Indonesian” only to others who are not, but in Indonesia, I am identified as “Chinese” due to my cultural heritage. It is quite common to meet a Chinese Indonesian, but a Chinese Indonesian Muslim is a rare combination. My personal struggle spurs my passion in exploring, discovering and learning about culture and identity. The factors I have listed so far is based on geography, ethics and religion-- fertile grounds to work off of. Yet my interest digs deeper as I wonder how it relates to our built and natural environments. Casting an initially wide net and sampling from an array of concepts will help me draw out a clearer scope for my thesis. The information then needs to be reflected, analysed and interpreted to my own ideas through writing, drawing and/or making. Writing as a method to verbalize my thoughts, drawing as a form of searching the essence of my ideas, and making as its embodiment. At this point, I do not know where this journey will take me or what the “end” product will be. But I know it is a challenge worth pursuing not for the sake of an institutional tradition of having a thesis but more for myself and for my own reflection.

THESIS STATEMENT Transcultural Place With the ever-changing and vastly blurring boundaries of contemporary cultures, how can one place embrace multiple cultures without losing each cultureâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s memories and meanings? How can our constructed space celebrate our contemporary, transcultural societies? I am searching for a place where an individual of any cultural background can feel welcomed; a place in between the extremely minimal, humdrum spaces and the single-culturallyspecific ethnic ideals --a shared place for multiple cultures. With the amalgamation of overlapping cultures, it becomes a challenge to design for a non-static, changing group of people. In fact, how many cultures can one individual identify with? How do cultural greetings differ and manifest in architecture? Is culture an ornament --merely a surface treatment that comprises of motifs and symbols? How can I measure culture? What are the similarities and differences? What are the commonalities that transcend all cultures, that unite these multiple cultures into a singular civilization? How much does the physical space affect culture? How can I map the forces that shape the culture and identity of an individual, a collective? I am in search for a place of comfort where multiculturality prospers.

POSITIONS Transcultural Place SITE Site contains the intersection of contextual layers bounded by visible and implied factors. It is rich with information providing a loaded base instead of a blank canvas. PROGRAM Program shapes the social behavior demanded of its users. It describes the relationship and interaction between the occupants. It is a constructed sequence that is integral to the agenda . The adjacencies and boundaries of the programmatic spaces builds the attitude of the space. USER User molds the identity of the space, where the place becomes a reflection of the user. There are multiple users, where each generates individual and communal meaning. The group of individuals change over time, where the architecture isnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t as malleable.

From top left to right: 1. Closer look inside 2. Top view through frosted side 3. Unrolled side views

OBJECT 01 Identity Box This box captures pertinent elements of my culture through my national, social and self identity. The cube is made of two clear sides, one translucent side and three solid sides including an opaque base. The transparencies reflect the degree of openness I reveal myself to the world and the different view-ports one can understand me. The transparent sides is plastered with the outline of Jakarta’s skyline with a batik pattern in the background to represent a place “where I am local”1 and identify deeply with. The Chinese knot symbolizes my Chinese heritage and basic knowledge of the practices and beliefs. The thirty three small spheres may not signify much to those who are unaware of my Islamic background. It is an abstraction of the tasbih, a thread of beads to help Muslims keep track of their repetitive utterance in glorifying Allah. The ring is an artifact of my High School where I developed my international or more westernized view of the world. The larger sphere in the background symbolizes the sun/moon. It drives my traditions as the Chinese and Islamic calendars follow the lunar cycle, while the daily prayer references the sun’s position to categorize the times for prayer. It also hints to my affinity of looking up and constantly admiring the sky and natural light.

1 TEDTalks:

Taiye Selasi--Don’t Ask Where I’m From, Ask Where I’m a Local. TED, 2014.

From top left to right: 1. Chinese shop-house entrance 2. Two-layered door in Shanghai 3. Brownstone entrance in New York 4. Double door apartment entrance 5. Suburban porch 6. Large gated entrance

OBJECT 02 Multicultural Greetings In search for a better understanding of the relationship of “architecture” and “culture” that interests me, I explored ideas relating to semantics, analogies, imageability, and meaning in architecture. From Kevin Lynch’s Image of the City, I learned that “An environmental image may be analyzed into three components: identity, structure, and meaning”1. Identity in terms of it being a recognizable entity to the user, Structure in the spatial sense and sequence or order, Meaning in its relationship to the user in its associations and value. Similarly, “the question of regional character has become a question of choice and, therefore, of design rather than of necessity”2 where in contemporary urban environments with its “Multiculturality”3 and amalgamation of overlapping cultures, it becomes a challenge to accommodate or design for a non-static, changing group of people. In reflection, the topic of my thesis revolves around social behavior and interaction, as it is then projected or reflected formally in our built environments. Taking greetings as an example, it manifests in different forms. A greeting ranges from a head nod to a warm embrace. In special occasions in the Pakistani tradition, a greeting includes a hug with three alternating kisses. In Korean culture, the youth bows to their elderly. In Indonesian culture, it’s palms together by the chest with a head bow, and so forth. These are all greetings that differ in circumstances and culture. As adaptable beings, we learn to conform, adjust ourselves to the interaction if different from what we are used to. Therefore, in an attempt to translate the body language into an architectural language of fenestration and openings as it parallels greetings, I have collected images that demonstrate these ideas particular to me.

1 Lynch,

Kevin. The Image of the City, The MIT Press, Massachusetts, 1960, pp. 36-90. Web.

2 Watson,

Georgina Butina. “The Art of PlaceMaking.” Sustaining Cities: Urban Policies, Practices, and Perceptions. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers UP, 2013. 76-94. Web.

3 Welsch,

Wolfgang. “Transculturality - the Puzzling Form of Cultures Today.” Spaces of Culture: City, Nation, World. London: Sage, 1999. 194-213. Web.

From top left to right: 1. Chinese emperorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s gate 2. Gate to enter residential complex 3. Residential gate in Jakarta 4. Door of Dogon village 5. Renovated shop-house residence 6. Front door in Marrakesh

Different cultures have different sequences and attitudes in their residential greetings. The images chosen portray an array of front doors and entrances, ranging from a publicly accessible streetfront to a sequences of gates that finally lead to the front door. The traditional Chinese shop-house consists of a public ground floor for the commercial or retail shop where the residences use the same public entrance and then take a private staircase up to their residences on the floors above. In contrast to a New York Brownstone where there is a waist level gate that leads to a set of stairs before reaching the front door. To its extreme, a security-monitored gate to a residential complex, then to a personal front-door gate, before walking or ramping up to the front door. The characteristics that stand out the most visually are the symbols and motifs on the door. So, is culture just an ornament? A mere surface treatment that comprises of motifs and symbols? What would a front door of a family who are Indian-Chinese-Hawaiian currently residing in Istanbul look like? How can architecture or design integrate the contemporary definition of culture or rather multi-cultures without compromising its memories and meanings?

avg.male avg.male cmSHM cm avg.malecm SHM female

SHM

female

Germany

Denmark

Okay Denmark

Okay

Netherlands Netherlands Netherlands Good

Ideal

Perfect

Good

Ideal

Perfect

10 100

100

100 190

190

110 20

110

200 110

200

cm avg.male female

Good

Indonesia

SHM

Germany

150

240 Okay Denmark

Philippines

Netherlands 30

30 120

40 130

210

210 120

120

130

130 220

Indonesia Japan

210

220

China Turkey 160Thailand Singapore Taiwan

220

50 140

140

140 230

230

Good

250 Ideal

230

S. Korea Indonesia

60 150

Indonesia

150

Philippines US France

Indonesia

150 240

240

Philippines Philippines

Philippines

Indonesia Japan

China Turkey

Singapore Taiwan

S. Korea

240

10 70

70 Thailand 160Thailand 250 160 160Thailand250

Australia

Spain Greece China

Sweden Germany Spain Greece China

Denmark

Sweden Germany Spain Greece China Mama Papa

Mama Papa

Singapore Taiwan

Philippines US France

Australia

Denmark

Mama Papa

Denmark

80 Thailand170 Thailand260 170 170 Thailand 260

260

Netherlands Netherlands Netherlands

Singapore

Yusuf

Turkey S.Korea

Australia

France US

90 180

180

Min.Spain

Sweden

Can do

France US

Me Min. Spain

Spain Sweden

Yusuf

Australia

Min.

Sweden

Can do

180 270

Can do

270

Australia

190

250

S. Korea

Philippines Philippines US US France France

Sweden Germany

100

Perfect

270

UK Indonesia Japan Sweden Germany China Turkey Spain 160Thailand Greece Singapore China Taiwan S. Korea Philippines US

250 Mama Papa

Average height data taken from http://averageheight.co

OBJECT 03 Relative Measurements Meaning differs depending on the context whether in its function or its relationship to social rules. The value we put in an object or a person is all relative to something else, better said by Chris Abel, “it is logically impossible to talk of the uniqueness of one thing without reference to another, different thing”1. In defining the relationship of architecture and culture in terms of meaning, there must be a basis for comparison, a criteria of sorts. But how do we measure culture? This tape measure attempts to demonstrate the relativity of the truth. In the first column consists of the standardized (metric) units of measurement, in the middle column is the cultural perceptions of that measurement relative to average heights by country, and the last column is the perception relative to my own bias. I want to demonstrate the multiple layers and interpretations a single fact may read. Relativism refers to a point of reference; a set of criteria internally or externally defined to evaluate in order to generate meaning2. In this case it is specific to measuring heights of female and male adults. This system of the three columns of interpretations could be used in measuring anything else, such as the temperature, the portion of meal, the percentage of correct answers in a test, and so on. We currently use standardization in order to make “better” comparisons or judgments, rather. Having standardized measurements in order to easily shop clothes or shoes, having standardized measurements in evaluating a student’s performance, and having standardized dimensions in our building materials. Then, is there a standardized measurement of meaning? Or how we build our

1 Abel,

Chris. Architecture and Identity: Responses to Cultural and Technological Change. 2nd ed. Oxford: Architectural, 2000. Print.

2 Ibid.

pp. 81-96.

UK Sweden Germany avg.male avg.male cmSHM cm avg.malecm SHM female

cm avg.male female

Spain Greece China

SHM

female

Germany

SHM

Okay Denmark

Denmark

Germany

Okay Denmark

Okay

Netherlands Netherlands Netherlands Good

Ideal

Perfect

Good

Ideal

Perfect

10 100

100

100 190

190

110 20

110

200 110

200

Germany

Denmark

Mama Papa

Okay

170 Thailand

30 120

210

210 120

120

260

Netherlands

Netherlands 30

Denmark

Singapore

210

Good

40 130

130

130 220

220

Yusuf Ideal 50

50 140

60 150

140

Indonesia

140 230

Indonesia

150

Australia

240

Indonesia Japan

China Turkey

Singapore Taiwan

S. Korea

Indonesia Japan China Turkey

250

Singapore Taiwan S. Korea Philippines US France

Australia

Sweden Germany

Spain Greece China

Mama Papa

Denmark

France US

190

70 Thailand 160Thailand 250 160 160Thailand250

Philippines Philippines US US France France

Perfect

240

Philippines

100 70

Turkey S.Korea

230

Indonesia

150 240

Philippines Philippines

230

Denmark

Spain Sweden

Mama Papa

Denmark

80 Thailand170 Thailand260 170 170 Thailand 260

Min.

260

Netherlands Netherlands Netherlands

Singapore

Yusuf

Turkey S.Korea

Australia

France US

UK Me

Sweden

Can do

90 180

180

Min.Spain

Min. Spain

Spain Sweden

Min.

Sweden

Can do

180 270

Can do

Yusuf

Turkey S.Korea

Can do

270

180

Average height data taken from

270http://averageheight.co

societies and civilizations? Standardization results in homogeneity of our contemporary urban environments. Where is the balance between the liberating, generic cities3 and their conventional, traditional identities? On top of the inherent complexity in relative measurements, the changes over time adds another layer of information. Because meaning is a product of a “cumulative cultural adaptation”4 that grows over time, how does architecture respond to the evolving cultures without compromising its cultural integrity? And how does architecture in turn shape our culture?

3 Corner,

James. “The Agency of Mapping: Speculation, Critique and Invention”. Mappings, Dennis Cosgrove, Ed. 1999. Web.

4 TEDTalks:

Mark Pagel--How Language Transformed Humanity. TED, 2011.

OBJECT 04 Home(s) I go back to my parents’ home for them. I miss home when I’m not there, but it’s really the idea of home that I miss. Not the city or the place itself, but the people and its memories. Every time I do go back, I find myself needing time to adapt to the lifestyle of my past. It’s a comfortable life. But I feel like an outsider.

When I’m here, away from home, I am an outsider, all alone. I am not under the comfort of my parents’ home. But I am free. I am well adapted to the culture here. But I wouldn’t call it home.

Then, what makes a home? Is it possible to have multiple homes? Is it solely the people and memories? Is the physical space secondary or even irrelevant? According to Norberg-Schulz, “human identity presupposes the identity of place”1 meaning that our notion of home is integral in shaping our identity. So as our home moves, how much of our identity moves as well? Is it only in sheltered dwellings2 that we attain this identity or is it possible to attain it in a public outdoor place as well?

1 Norberg-Schulz,

Christian. Genius Loci: Towards a Phenomenology of Architecture. New York: Rizzoli, 1980. Print.

2 Heidegger,

Martin. Building, Dwelling, Thinking. N.p.: n.p., 1977. Web.

From top left to right: 1. Islamic window 2. Chinese window 3. Gothic window 4. East Javanese window 5. Moroccan window 6. Byzantine window

OBJECT 05 Window(s) The idea is to superimpose multiple windows from various cultures into one window, in hopes that different individuals would be able to identify with the window based on their own background. The accumulation of the layers make it difficult to quickly read each window. However, with the windows coming in different frames and sizes, certain parts are revealed which hints to its original. This is an exploration or even an image for my thesis statement, specifically: “With the...vastly blurring boundaries of contemporary cultures, how can one place embrace multiple cultures without losing each culture’s memories and meanings?”

OBJECT 06 Door(s) Since we are moving toward a “global civilization with many local cultures”1, what are the global commonalities that unite these multiple cultures into a singular civilization? In relation to architecture, I explored this through operating on a door. A door represents a transition and intersection of spaces. In this case, it inhabits multiple cultures into one door. Similar to the idea of the multiple windows, this door is a compilation of multiple ones that is then its own unique (trans)cultural door. The acetate pieces on the bottom displays the individual layers, while the top part of the door shows its combination. In reflection to this probe, questions regarding what is shown and what gets lost emerged. It questions what hierarchy drives the process, or the decisions that come into play in merging multiple motifs into a new one. The idea of a “front” and “back” or comparison of “inside” and “outside” brings about the sidedness or asymmetry of the object. From the front, only the Chinese motif with hints of Indonesian and post-modern Islamic style is shown. Whereas the other side reveals more intricate and diverse patterns.

1 Schäfer,

Wolf. “Global Civilization and Local Cultures: A Crude Look at the Whole.” International Sociology 16.3 (2001): 301-19. Print.

From left to right (on previous page): 1. Moroccan motifs 2. Jepara (East Javanese) motifs 3. European (Sicily) style 4. Chinese door 5. West Javanese door pattern 6. Modern Malaysian door

70 TCEJBO dnuorG ehT sti hguorht ti esylana I ,semoh fo noitatneserper ym ot kcab gnioG otni secaps dna semit elpitlum despalloc I sA .noitavele dna nalp -umucca ym fo pihsnoitaler eht slaever gniward siht ,egami eno htiw deredner si nalp ehT .morf emac ti erehw dna emoh detal sti ot noitaler dna nus eht ot noitatneiro sti ot eurt era taht swodahs ot refer taht senil dettod sedulcni noitavele eht saerehW .dnuorg .secalp eerht eht fo sdnuorg tnereffid eerht eht -ropmi eht sa llew sa ,ereh detneserp si yhcrareih fo noitseuq ehT ni dohtem a si noitarolpxe niam eht ,revewoH .tniopweiv fo ecnat desopmirepus eht epahs taht secrof fo noitcesretni eht gnippam .ecaps

OBJECT 07 The Ground Going back to my representation of homes, I analyse it through its plan and elevation. As I collapsed multiple times and spaces into one image, this drawing reveals the relationship of my accumulated home and where it came from. The plan is rendered with shadows that are true to its orientation to the sun and relation to its ground. Whereas the elevation includes dotted lines that refer to the three different grounds of the three places. The question of hierarchy is presented here, as well as the importance of viewpoint. However, the main exploration is a method in mapping the intersection of forces that shape the superimposed space.

SNART L A R U TL U C ECALP kooB ranimeS sisehT 5102 llaF

itnaidaH haraS

TRAN S N A R T L A R U TL U C ECALP

itnaidaH haraS