Completed Packed and Parcelled Introduction

Here's my completed work on my introduction, i am absolutely 97% sure that i will not be touching anymore on it. giving a leeway of 3% in case i realize i left out something or i found something good to add on to (:

Just for random information, it's exactly 3 pages long on an A4 including pictures at the font of Trebuchet MS size 10. hehehehe! Yes, im proud of it. :D

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.

Fig 1 - Mayan city of Palenque (Chiapas, Mexico) an example of Pre-Columbian Architecture

Fig 2 - Temple of Concordia (Agrigento, Sicily) an example of Greek Architecture

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.

Fig 3 -Parthenon Temple, an example of Greek architecture

Fig 4 -Colosseum, an example of Roman architecture

Fig 5 -Saint Basil's Cathedral, an example of Renaissance architecture

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. This will be further elaborated on in Chapter 2.

Additionally, we have to consider the thoughts of the users, the laymen, people who would actually be using the designed building. Do they 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 architecture will come to an end without giving the general people 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 designers, the professionals in the industry, 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? Adding on, we know that Malaysian designers are very talented indeed, but what do they do to show it? Or are they even given a chance to show their worth?

“Designed by Argentine architects César Pelli and Djay Cerico under the consultancy of Julius Gold. Its engineering designs on structural framework were contributed by Haitian engineer Domo Obiasse and colleagues Aris Battista and Princess D Battista. 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

The blame game should not be put only on either sides as even the 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? All propositions will be answered and justified in Chapter 3.

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. 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 4 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 5.

Fig 6 - Conceptual representative of good architecture

Fig 6 - Conceptual representative of bad architecture

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.