So far, this is what i've got. It's basically the same stuff, with a few additions and extractions. And it's finally in a flow~
However, i'm still having issues with my word count, as there's just so darn much to say with so little word allowance >:(
Anyhows, it's only about 50% done, so i should be able to make the 70% cut by next week :D I've already got my direction and know the stuff i'm gonna be adding in, so it should hopefully all go as planned (:
...
1.0 Introduction
“Architecture is the art and science of designing and erecting buildings” – Farlex on the definition of architecture
To define the start of architecture is to define the beginning of mankind. Architecture has showed its presence the moment a person builds shelter to protect themselves from the effects of the natural environment. (Eg : rain and sun) But as the eras pass, mankind has evolved and so has architecture, no longer is it a term to merely describe shelter but identity. Referring to Fig 1 and Fig 2, comparing the vast differences in styles of the Pre-Columbian Architecture and Greek Architecture can show how mankind too has evolved. Just by looking at their architecture we can discover their lifestyles even though we live in the present day. Architecture now plays a strong role in daily lives to represent identity, culture, evolution, needs and history of mankind.
(PIC) (PIC) - Note : Pictures in introduction are the same as before please refer to those if necessary.
However, by looking back into the history of architecture, many periods/eras have failed because of the simple fact of many laymen not being able to understand the ideas and concepts of architects. In fact, it is because there are many periods that came after the Greek period that shows as proof to the statement that many lack the skill and ability to analyze and criticize designs in architecture. (Refer to Fig 3, 4 and 5) Thus, this dissertation will be stressing on why is there a need for analyzing and criticizing designs in architecture and the outcomes of it.
Not everyone is born with the ability to differentiate the good from the bad of designs in architecture, especially with arts and design being subjective. Thus, what makes one building a success and another a failure? Where and how can we pin point the reason for a building to be considered a good or bad design? Additionally, a persons thought tend to change from time to time; the likes of today can be the hatred of tomorrow. So should there not be a specific rule whereby one could follow in terms of judging a design architecturally? In terms of judging design, there is a Vitruvius law by Marcus Vitruvius Pollio that states how one should judge a good design; but does it still comply with the world of today? Especially since he lived and died during the reign of Julius Caesar.
Additionally, we have to consider the thoughts of the users, the laymen, people who would actually be using the designed building. Do Malaysians even care about how and why certain things were designed a certain way? Or are they just indifferent towards designs in architecture and are just complacent? Assuming if they do care, what is the percentage of the people not from a design background who actually do spare a thought for designs architecturally? Surveys done have shown that people without the ability to judge wisely due to the lack of knowledge on the subject matter tend to misinterpret the meanings and intentions of designers. This is one of the factors of why Malaysian architecture will come to an end without giving the locals enough time to react and retaliate as it is already starting to head towards the end without them even realizing as without the knowledge, people are naïve and unaware of what is actually going on in the world of architecture.
How about the Malaysian designers, the professionals in the industry, the fact that they have to go through many years of studies bundled with several years of work experience, would it then mean they would be aware of the architectural world? Based on this, why are they still producing repetitive soulless designs? Fact is that Malaysian designers are in actuality truly talented however are the opportunities for them to shine given? Or is it that they do not strive hard enough to succeed?
“Designed by renowned Japanese architect Kisho Kurokawa, the KLIA is a spectacular feat of construction which combines futuristic technology, Malaysian culture and the rich, tropical splendor of its natural resources.” – Julie Chang on architecture of Kuala Lumpur International Airport
The blame game should not be put only on either sides as even the Malaysian government plays a part, everyone does. With talented local professional designers, why is it that our country still feels the need for requesting help from foreign architects to design our own iconic buildings? The local architects were not even given a chance.
Which leads back to, have the local designers even proven their worth to be able to design iconic buildings to put Malaysia on the grid line of the earth? And have the locals been supportive enough to help with the upbringing of the awareness towards Malaysian designs in architecture? As it is the locals who are the ones who will acknowledge the designs, it is their response that makes the difference. So are they responding well or just being robotically indifferent? This will be further elaborated on in Chapter 2.
If one does not have knowledge about certain matters but yet is asked to judge it, surely and logically one would judge it using their most basic sense, which is sight. It is by our eyes that our brains are able to form a thought according to the visual that we see. By that, designers tend to manipulate the forms to create an interesting aesthetic approach that will please the eyes of many. Just by that, the logic of form following function which is to generate the building form according to its building program has been changed completely to a form which has no meaning but to just attract the eyes of people with high aesthetics. And the general public that is lacking in knowledge and ability to judge a building will be mesmerized easily and assumes that a building should be highly aesthetic to be declared as a successful building. Like a drop in a pond creates ripples, this creates a butterfly effect that anyone and everyone who does not come from a design background will automatically judge buildings merely by their aesthetical values.
That being said, the whole design process that architects go through, such as generating ideas and thoroughly considering many other important factors will have gone to waste. Eventually as designers too have to make a living, they will start designing buildings that are purely aesthetical rather than functional in order to supply the demand of the public; which will be asking for high aesthetic designs. This will gradually lead to the death of architecture as architects will no longer strive for functional ideals but rather produce soulless buildings that scream with high aesthetics.
Additionally the competition amongst the Malaysian designers too becomes a factor. Do they strive to be better designers that can contribute to a better living or do the just strive to be better than the person next to them? Is the competition amongst the professionals’ one that will be improving our future living or one that would cause the death of architecture?
Imagine living in a world where buildings are so ridiculously designed just for mere attraction sake. What would the identity of today’s culture be for the future generation? Not only will the lives of the current generation be affected but rather the lives of the future generations to come. Chapter 3 will be exposing the cold hard facts of the journey to the end of architecture as we know it.
The famous saying of prevention is always better than a cure is one which we could all use to refer to this. Instead of waiting for the death of architecture to arrive, why not do something that prevents it from ever coming? Instead of just talking about sustainability and going green, why not actually enforce it? Same goes for architecture, so many things could be done to prevent it from ever coming to a full stop but yet no one does anything but talk and compliant about it. Referring to Fig 6 and 7, isn’t it better to live in a conceptual world like the one in Fig 6 rather than the one in Fig 7? Ways on how we can play a part in improving architecture and how we can have a better lifestyle with better architecture will be brought up in Chapter 4.
This goes without the need of saying that it is without a doubt that the need for analyzing and criticizing designs in architecture is rather urgent as with it, we can put a stop to the fast paced speed that we are moving towards the end of architecture as we know it.
2.0 Judge wise or regret otherwise
In lieu with the title, how does one actually judge a design? Because of art being so subjective, one who knows nothing about art will merely judge using the sense of sight alone, other wise known as the Ocularcentrism concept. This will be discussed further in Chapter 2.2.
However, in the current day how many Malaysian actually care enough to look at a building and slowly analyze it? Malaysians in fact rarely even bother looking at buildings unless it is one that sticks out extraordinarily like a sore thumb. It is this Malaysian nonchalant attitude that affects the whole concept of judging architecture.
According to the survey results in Fig ***, most Malaysians do not even bother to look and notice buildings. To most, it is just a place in which they have to enter to perform daily tasks. Eg: work, eat, rest and etcetera.
*insert survey results*
2.1 Acknowledging and categorizing designs
In order to judge a design, one has to first acknowledge its existence. This on its own is an issue for Malaysians as we tend to just enter a building without looking at any of its design details. This is so because most Malaysians do not have any emotional attachments to buildings as it’s merely a place for one to perform daily activities. Studies shown that Malaysians are inclined to appreciate a building even more so despite the design being just mediocre if they were emotionally attached to it.
*insert poll results done*
Nonetheless when putting emotional linkage aside, the definition of a good design may be very subjective but the basic of idea generation is similar. It is the process of execution that plays the major role when compared with just the outcome. For example, if one concept was given to forty designs students, it is certain that there will be more than just one outcome as every person visualizes and creates different outcomes based on their experience, culture and background. Additionally, it is the extra efforts put into researching and analyzing that plays a big part in solidifying an idea.
So how exactly can one categorize Malaysian architecture as good or bad? According to the Vitruvius Law by Marcus Vitruvius Pollio, a good design is one which consists of the three main aspects; Durability, Utility and Beauty. Back then, durability is defined by the ability of the building to endure the forces of nature. Utility on the other hand represents the process of design selections. Lastly, beauty despite being the easiest to describe, is the hardest to achieve. Beauty is one in which would please the eyes of the users. However, do these three simple aspects of the Vitruvius Law still apply to the current day architecture of Malaysia? Especially since Pollio lived in 100BC under the ruling of Julius Caesar and he is definitely not even Malaysian.
*insert reference issues – Vitruvius Law*
Truth be told, the Vitruvius Law still remains despite the years. However, as times passed, it is no longer so famously known only as Vitruvius Law but rather as philosophies dictated by various famous architects with the purpose of catering it to suit their period. For example, during the Modernist period, the philosophy of Ludwig Mies van de Rohe, “Form Follow Function” holds the similar criteria set by the Vitruvius Law.
Since the current day architecture in Malaysia is heavily influenced by the modern living of the Modernist period, most residential homes have already adapted and are built according to Vitruvius Laws subconsciously. *Durability in the current day homes helps to reduce the costs of repair while also preventing wastage of materials. Utility helps in maintenance as the right materials for the right location creates a harmony in which there is no need for frequent maintaining. Beauty being subjective makes it possible for designs to keep changing with the era as peoples likes tend to change from time to time.* Thus, proving that the Vitruvius Law still does exist till the current day Malaysian architecture and more buildings should be categorized according to these criteria.
2.2 How Malaysians perceive architecture
Malaysians in general tend to be superficial towards designs in architecture despite not admitting to it. The complacent attitude of Malaysians is one of the important factors that affect them when it comes to judging architecture. Despite not knowing the process of design, Malaysians would rather just judge buildings by the way it looks as that would make them feel knowledgeable despite being otherwise. When Malaysians judge building merely by the looks of it, or rather by what they see, the ocularcentrism concept applies; it is a concept in which all experience is based merely on the perception of the eyes.
“Architecture is the thoughtful making of space” - Louis Kahn.
Ideally, buildings are designed for the users and their needs. The process that designers have to go through isn’t short and easy but rather long and torturous. From the start of finding out the user needs to the user preference and researching the site location including its environment and surroundings, not one piece of information has to be left out to create the final design of the building. Additionally, no building is designed purely on conceptual ideas but rather only after going through a series of developed models and prototypes will it only then be considered as a maybe for the outcome. Aside from that, cultural and historical values have to be analyzed beforehand. Finally, after going through the hoo-hahs, the finalized design of the building will be created. Not only has it got to be functional and logical but also high in aesthetic value.
That being said, a design idea does not automatically become a building without going through processes. Unfortunately, it’s proven by the survey done (Refer to Fig ***) that the laymen do not think about the issues that designers face while designing the building but rather just look at the outcome of it. This shows how Malaysians take architecture for granted and really couldn’t care less of what becomes or could come from it.
*insert survey results*
When something is designed, it is normally for the purpose of improving the quality of living, there isn’t any design that one can specifically pin point and label as bad as all design is subjective. Thus, when a designer designs for the convenience, how do we react to it? The simplest logical answer to that is to appreciate it. For example, a simple door that has a handle on one side and a plate on the other (Refer to Fig *** and ***) needless to say means to push or pull without having to read the signage, and think before reacting.
*insert Fig *** & ***
This shows how designers have thought one step ahead just to design the convenience for the users albeit it being a big issue or a tiny one. Unfortunately, Malaysians tend to take things for granted and just do not know how fortunate they are.
Additionally, the Malaysian ignorant attitude of disposing old designs to keep in trend is encouraged by the community. Nowadays it is all about what costs more and which is newer, no longer is it about what is good and has satisfactory quality. Malaysians now have adapted to the new world living of ‘buy and throw away’ only a handful would take the time to think of how things work and how they can adapt to it whereas others would just throw a design away without attempting a second try/chance. This attitude has caused a whole lot of issues within the nation itself. Eg: Burning waste in Malaysia causes climate change, wastage piling up in rural areas affecting the environment and etcetera.
“In Malaysia we produce 19,000 tones of waste every day, and a majority of that ends up in landfills. *To put in perspective 19,000 tonnes of rubbish, if you piled it all up it would be as high as 36 Petronas Twin Towers, that’s an awful lot of rubbish to deal with on a daily basis.*” – Nural on Recycling in Malaysia
Getting back on track, this attitude also applies to how Malaysians look at architecture, always wanting to look at ‘new’ buildings with fancy designs that cost a whole lot more to produce than the last expensive building. All that matters is aesthetics, aesthetics and higher aesthetics. Eventually, the extravagance that Malaysians crave leads to bombastic forms but lack in functionality.
2.3 Everyone is liable
The increase in the demand for purely aesthetic buildings will pressure designers into supplying designs that will satisfy the eyes alone. This leads to the lack of passion within designers as they do not have the freedom to design properly but are forced into creating repetitive aesthetic buildings. Eventually buildings will end up soulless as designers will end up competing to design more bombastically and aesthetically eventually they will lose sight of the basic design process of which is focused around the needs of the society.
Buildings of high aesthetics will normally look rather similar as the materials used to attract the attention of the laymen will be similar, thus constricting the designers from creating unique buildings. Fig *** shows how buildings in this era are already somewhat similar, thus proving the point.
*insert Fig ***
The competition between designers that initially brought a more enriched design lifestyle to Malaysians would eventually be the factor that destroys the future generation in architecture design. This is a devastating thought as it is certain that Malaysian designers have much to offer in the architecture industry. An excerpt from an interview with Chief Design Officer (CDO), Lillian Tey, of Veritas Architect Sdn Bhd is proof a legitimate Malaysian architectural design company that strives to achieve a better lifestyle for the future generation;to leave a mark that represents Malaysia’s current identity.
*insert excerpt from interview with lilian tey*
However, despite being an internationally renowned company with a superb portfolio (Refer to Fig ***,*** and *** for examples of their building designs in Malaysia), they still weren’t given the chance to design Malaysia’s iconic twin towers, Petronas Twin Towers.
*Pics from Veritas portfolio – Fig ***,***,***
Petronas Twin Towers (Refer to Fig *** and ***) was one of the first reasons that Malaysia was put on the map globally, Being the first twin towers that was the tallest in the world definitely brought up the nation’s standards. However, when one uses the World Wide Web (WWW) to search up the towers, they’ll find out it wasn’t built nor designed by any local architects but rather foreign ones. This factor causes people to realize that Malaysia houses the first tallest twin towers that wasn’t designed by Malaysians. Thus, it’s not Malaysia who should be receiving the credit for such a building.
*images of Petronas Twin Towers – Fig *** and ***
“Designed by Argentine architects Cesar Pelli and Djay Cerico under the consultancy of Julius Gold. Tower 1 was built by a Japanese consortium led by the Hazama Corporation while Tower 2 was built by Samsung C&T and Kukdong Engineering & Construction, both South Korean contractors.* ”– Wikipedia on the architecture of Petronas Twin Towers
In fact, most of Malaysia’s renowned architectural buildings are not designed by the local designers at all. The Kuala Lumpur International Airport (KLIA) is an example of another world renowned building in Malaysia designed by a foreign architect. This decision by the local government to request foreign designers to design Malaysia’s iconic buildings does not only decrease the chance for Malaysian architects to shine and show their talent but also degrades Malaysian architects to the extent of assuming they do not have the talent to design their own nations’ iconic building.
*insert pictures of KLIA*
Thus, despite however much effort any local designers put in to rise above the lack of opportunity given by the local government only disappoint and lowers morale to do better and work harder. It is safe to say therefore that not only one person is to blame for what the Malaysian architecture is becoming but rather every single person plays a part albeit it being a big role or a minor one.
The general public in Malaysia too plays a major part that affects architecture as their easy going and carefree attitude that makes them accept things without questioning the sources thus making them unable to choose a better architectural future on their own but rather letting the governments dictate their future home. Additionally, the ignorant attitude of Malaysians towards architecture has tremendously affected the architecture of Malaysia to date. The fact that Malaysians could not be bothered about gaining any general knowledge about architecture shows how the architectural maturity in Malaysia is lagged for ten to fifteen years behind the global era.
The Guggenheim Museum Bilbao by Frank Gehry is a good example for this its popularity blew out in 1999 but yet in a recent survey it is shown that __% of Malaysians do not even know who Frank Gehry is, nor the existence of such a building.
*insert Survey results*
Therefore, it’s certain to say that every single person in Malaysia be it a professional, a plutocrat or merely just a layman, plays a big role in the Malaysian architecture. Malaysians should not be selfishly indifferent as their lack of response will only cause others who have the potential to make a difference in the architectural world to be stumped and not progress forward.
