Rethinking architecture: How should we go post Bawa
‘Space’ is often misinterpreted as ‘emptiness’. But on the contrary, unlike ‘emptiness’, ‘space’ is an organised phenomenon. An organised space or something built. Architecture can be defined as the art and science of designing structures in civilization. It’s both an art and a science at the same time. And holds both symbolic and use value. Architecture is a representation of the contradiction between ‘ideas’ and ‘practice’ of civilization. Buildings are a representation of a society’s antagonisms, materialized within a built space.
How do we understand such a situation in a country like Sri Lanka? Even though we have a certain practice regarding sectors such as built spaces, landscaping, and urban planning and designing of residential spaces, we still don’t have a science of ‘Thinking’ on Architecture or Architectural philosophy. The writings of Anoma Peries, Tarik Jaleel or David Robson cover only an aesthetic entrance, but not critical theory. My take on it is that, we need a much more critical access through socio political dynamics when it comes to thinking on the sector of Architecture. In this sense, we still haven’t properly analysed the evolution of local Architecture. Whether this is a spontaneous phenomenon is a question that remains to be asked.
Sri Lankan Architectural Discourse
Sri Lankan architecture was reshaped throughout the colonial period following its identity crisis during the pre-colonial era. Urban centred colonial forts, Dutch mansions and buildings of Victorian design are icons of the beginning of modernity in Sri Lankan architecture. The second batch in the modern genre was marked by the emergence of Geoffrey Bawa, Minette De Silva to Barbara Sansoni who sought to create an architectural identity unique to the nation. As an extension of this movement, architects like Anura Rathnawibhushana to Muditha Jayakodi who designed the Punchi Theatre in Borella, continue to preserve a Sri Lankan architectural identity through subscribing to an otherness that is in binary opposition to colonial architecture. One can clearly discern how the contemporary identity-based discourse still continues to be centred upon an ‘otherness’ of the post-colonial genre rather than on the true contradictions existing within contemporary Sri Lankan society.
An artist’s impression of Altair condo
The way in which people understand the art and science of designing structures based on a given society and a period is very interesting. As mentioned above, one dominant practice which sought to establish a national architectural identity is the Bawa-centred movement known as Tropical Modernism. In the global context, ‘modernism’ doesn’t mean a nature centred way of thinking. But in Sri Lanka, even Eco Architecture which is based on energy-efficiency, often seems to be reduced to mean ‘planting trees inside buildings’. Perhaps, we will learn the true meaning of Eco Architecture from Moshe Safdie with the luxury residential building ‘Altair’ coming up in Slave Island. The second understanding of designing structures in Sri Lanka appears to be planting post-modern designs without any criticism –like glass designs of virtual reality or container cabins (hybrid buildings) which have become popular especially in the post war era. Again what one can perceive is a strong identity crisis rather than an attempt to approach real contradictions existing at the ground level.
Based on this brief introduction to the existing contemporary discourse, let’s ask ourselves a fundamental question. What is the ideological function in the local architectural sector? Most academics and professionals may avoid such a question as it does not directly impact their active involvement in practice. It’s true that a professional earning a monthly salary may not ask this question from him or herself. But that is precisely the point from which we should start our discussion with the so called commoners. Let’s ask them if they ever stop to think that they are living in a design that someone else has structured and how much it controls their lives in so many senses. It’s not enough to ask this question in the context of understanding ideology. Ideology effectively functions when you really live in these built spaces. It is not merely a problem concerning ‘power’. It is also not as simple as changing a Government in the hope of change for the better.
Ideological spaces
Ideology function in a structure is no longer factually unknown in a classical sense. In a post ideological era, whether structures take on a decorative form in a pseudo – postmodern sense or serve a power block, the ideology function of that structure no longer remains unknown by society. They know that these designs will not address the antagonisms they face nor will they challenge their existing way of life. So how can we accept architecture as an art or science of structuring society in a mass scale?
One can table the practical impossibility that an architect faces and point out how when dealing with a client, one’s own creative of effective ideas must be compromised to suit their preferences. Or it can be said that architecture is never a total art work and that a single architect cannot totally overcome the cultural and official boundaries. One can also pose the question – can someone really live in a neo design that abstractly overcomes existing social conditions? True enough. Now, how can we address this problem in a revolutionary sense of truly changing existing structures?
In a broad sense, any art is based on human freedom. It’s a matter of both subjective and objective freedom. Of all forms of art, Architecture is the most effective as it is an art of praxis actually engaging with human beings. That’s precisely the reason for so much debate to have been generated over the course of history as to whether architecture is an art or not. In any sense, it remains the most affective art. As with any art, architects practise new ways of imagination and re-making. Then, why is it that in our country, we rarely see an architectural practice on freedom? With architecture being recognized as a so called ‘professional sector’ it has historically marginalized its capability of critical and analytical entrance. It’s highly effective when we consider ‘freedom’ even in relation to topics such as public and private spaces or in and out margins in existing structures. As an example, it can be observed how in new designs of houses the sitting room is located at the back of the house and has to be reached after passing through a corridor and a private area consisting of rooms and such. The border between private and public has faded. On the other hand we see interior designs of modern homes getting much closer to hotel decorations and hotels becoming much more private space while trying to give you the feeling of being in your own home. How can we interpret this post-Bawa way of personalising public space? As a trend, public spaces such as hotels, offices, supermarkets and cafes are becoming more personalised. This mixing of the two spaces decentralises and our basic sense of in and out.
These topics need to be taken out of ‘common-sense’ discourse and ‘aesthetics-based’ criticism and instead be seen within a more politicized space of designing structures. For example, while unmovable cement tables and chairs may be a reasonable feature within a public space, how can we understand such features in post-modern interior designs, especially inside private homes? Such developments take human cognition beyond its familiar zone of reasoning. The struggle for Freedom is established in places within a society where such unreasonable borders are marked. Even by considering a simple example like the one above, we can easily recognize how architecture in Sri Lanka has been guided by an automated internal dynamic rather than by any political factor impacting the social masses. In other words architecture has followed its’ own methods rather than becoming organized by intentional intervention. For example, if you were a guest who enters the home, you must now follow your own ethics and decide whether to look inside the private areas you pass while walking through the corridor rather than have your movement organized by the design of the structure. The area leading up to the sitting room is not symbolized as ‘private’ by design. When we consider this as a matter of ideology, this is not a problem of architecture but a social plague which has entered in to buildings symptomatically. The problem that remains to be asked is – why such a powerful art like architecture cannot address this matter consciously in a way which frees people from underdevelopment of a society. Mixing private and public borders appears to be a structure that must remain for the capitalist market to thrive – A point amply illustrated by post-modern advertising techniques. Even among the growing Sri Lankan middle class, life borders marking ‘in’s and ‘out’s within their private lives have faded.
The main problem at present is that there is no platform to discuss these issues in a critical and social sense. When it comes to architecture, not just the lower strata in Sri Lankan society but even the middle classes lack the cognitive capacity to engage with these topics. So, there is no relationship we can mark between lives of people and built spaces that they live in. Historically, the trend has moved from Post-Colonial designs or Tropical Modernism, Simulacrum of Post-Modernist approaches to many unrelated areas without touching upon real antagonisms in society. As Luis Khan said, if architecture is a science of understanding people living inside buildings, what is the possible approach we can take? How can architecture address existing contradictions with regards to issues of freedom? Or should it remain within existing ideologies? We must demand intervention for structural change rather than maintaining structures already built. Architecture is not a subject which connotes ‘going back to nature’ as it appears to be commonly understood in Sri Lanka, but one which is based on building structures against it. It is not about preserving existing structures but rather is the science of building new structures.