Architectural Symbolism in the times of the ancient Egypt.

Symbolism was used by the Egyptians since its time from the old to the new kingdom to
project their everlasting power and control and that is proven by how they were able to
uphold their cultural significance and civilization for up to 2000 years with no sign of major
stray from their ritualistic believes and how they were performed. Their rulers the Pharaohs
are considered gods and that respect and bond between the omnipotent and immortal ruler
and his people were never broken because of how they, like the Mesopotamians before them,
rallying and marshalling the forces of their entire civilization and directing those forces in the
service of widely held cultural values.
It is clear how the awesomeness and powerfulness of the pharaohs are so permanent and
everlasting, because the very tomb that holds them ARE permanent and everlasting, it is a
simple yet much more mesmerizing than recording achievements of a person into books or
any form of small archives. That is why the length of our cultural timeline will never match
that of the Egypts, even though many civilizations tried to imitate that sort of power, we
always stray off the path of becoming immortal in the minds of the people because we are too
concern with functions, the Commodity of architectures. We have diluted the power of
buildings by pushing them to become a multi-functional place which can store multiple
personals for different usage, and that is why it never holds as much authority and respect as
Pyramids or even the Taj Mahal, in which it is constructed for a single purpose: a tomb, in
which the function in itself is to hold a significant amount of sentimental value by serving as a
reminder of someone important to a certain group of people in this case the entire population
of the Egyptian nation. Virtually all Egyptian art and architecture was very practical in terms
of symbolism, to assist the Pharaohs passage to the next world and ensure his glorious arrival
with comfort and luxury.
For the Pyramids, to render it a work of permanence, they combine the use of natural
endurance of limestone and architectural genius to construct an "immortal" tomb, to remind
the people always, no matter how long it may past, of how powerful their kingdom is. The
Egyptians have used many techniques to install their cultural values and significance into
their people via architecture and those ideas are often imitated to install the same ideas for
different empires in different times (obelisks, encryptions on the building telling stories etc.).
lets start with the pyramid itself, the idea of size as power is a macho idea (not to stir up any
innuendos) that the larger I am the greater I am, and since it is a large structure, it is easy for
people to see and to be remind of someone's greatness. The use of the pyramid shape cannot
collapse due to its monumentally strong foundation and its layers of structures of heavy bricks
placing on top of each other. The essence of the Pyramids is the utilization of its size to signify
power, and this idea is shared by many empires to follow, for example the Taj Mahal, another
large construction built to enclose a burial chamber. The love of Emperor Shah Jahan for his

third wife is shown, not only from its size and single serving function, but by its detail and
delicateness due to how this is not built for power but for remembrance. Another thing I forgot
to mention was the dedication to detail found in the Pyramids as well. For example the
pyramids of Giza, in its royal burial chamber, it is not made out of limestone bur rather red
granite to depict its uniqueness and importance, and also to show the dedication and time
that they have put into carving these granite into blocks for building by using primitive tools
and good old fashion man power. Another interesting thing I notice from this symbolism of
power, is that it is also used by other leaders such as Hitler and Stalin to use as the symbol of
the greatness of their empire. Stalin propose the "palace of the soviets" and Hitler propose
the "Volkshalle" (people's hall) in order to connote their empire strength. However both
projects are prove to be impossible since the palace would be twice the height of the Empire
state building and the People's hall would be too large and according to Albert Speer, a Nazi
architect at that time, that it would practically deafen an ear drum due to its acoustic ability
and that an artificial rain can be create from the people spits (the hall was designed to hold
400,000 seats!)
Another interesting thing that Egypt architecture tends to use is the fusion with nature; this in
particular would link more to the middle and new kingdom. Since they have shift to building
complex of temples and tombs, the idea behind symbolism also have to change. Firstly is the
use of the cliff rock as the burial room seen in the temple of Mentuhotep and Hatshepsut. The
use of the mountain rock signifies the power and permanence the temple uphold much like
the mountain itself. It also shows respect for the surrounding natural features. Another
interesting fusion with nature is the use of daylight by architectural feature call clerestory. The
use of clerestory is a necessity since in the middle and new kingdom, the purpose of tombs
have expand from serving as only a royal burial into a temple and a place for the people to
get education about their culture and their heritage. Hieroglyphs are carved into columns for
educational purposes, and since these columns are indoor they require light to read such
inscriptions.
Another interesting use of sunlight is the one seen in Abu Simbel in which the entrance of the
temple is a straight hallway into the inner temple which is all built into a mountainside. They
calculated the orientation and direction of the sun to be shown on a certain date to actually
shine through the entrance into the inner temple and illuminating the whole temple. This sun
phenomenon is not the only interesting thing but how they utilize this as part of their
symbolism techniques. In the inner sanctum holds 4 gods: Ra, Ramsese (The Pharaoh that
built this temple in dedication of his victory in battle), Amun and Ptah. Ra and Amun are gods
associating with heaven and divination, whereas Ptah associates with the underworld. The
gods are aligned in this given formation and as the sun phenomena, which occurred every 2
years; it illuminates the 3 statues but left Ptah in the darkness to symbolize the separation of
heaven and hell, to leave the underworld in the darkness. This can consider to hold a certain

kind of religious authority as they depicting the underworld to always be in darkness and
never saw the light of day. This use of daylighting can be found anywhere in modern
architecture. One in particular religious use of daylighting can be found in the Church of Light
where architect Tadao Ando utilize the sun to shine its radiance through the crucifix facade
and create a cross of light.

Roman Architecture VS Commercialism and Globalization

Public spaces is a free area for everyone to gather and discuss current issues, well, at least in
the Roman times. Agoras and forums are architectural features of the Romans which
distinguish from other cultures, though with the extremely similar style of architecture to their
predecessors the Greeks, the purpose of the buildings are made mainly for the people in order
to please them and hence remain in control under the republic and the Emperor. Since its shift
from a democratic system the whole empire tends to turn to one man on the throne to push
their reign further and stronger. Despite the difference in time and system, the power of the
people remains strong and neccesary for the nation to survive. Back in the days of the
Romans, discussion of current issues are carried out in the agoras, the public spaces that is
made just to CONTAIN the population physically and psychologically, with this function in
mind, the people feels free even under the containment of the walls and the buildings.
Another service system found in this epoch is the placement of Gladiatorial Arenas in various
areas to invite people to participate in a free and exciting fight between the gladiators,truly
fascinating. Unlike the architecture of the Greeks where they use the logic and order of LOGOS
along with the use of ARETE and MYTHOLOGY to convey the meaning, significance and
authority of the architecture. Now, with the Romans, all that remains is just immitation of the
Greeks to maintain such peek of intelligence and power in Architecture to empower their
people and strengthen their empire rooting from their population. Now, to foucs on the word
PUBLIC, where could we find anything pulic these days? Parks? Memorials? Libraries?
Museum? none of those are PUBLIC in the same sense as the agoras back in the day of the
Romans which exist for the sole purpose of public discussion. True that nowadays we still have
such "place" for discussion and again it is called forum. The internet have become the main
medium of public discussion, expression, conversation among the people around the world,
Globalization has taken over the idea of local arguments and comment of national concerns,
people all talk about all the issues around the world since now they know they are not alone.

The Bubble have expanded and people have welcome it with open arms. We might think to
ourselves why would no one just create a free space within a mall or even a park? no grass,
no trees no tables... just plain old "free space" for public usage. Of couse the answer is
commercialism.
People survive today based on salary from their work and one of the main goals in life is to
find clients to take the money from. And since the time of industrial age, the idea of such
space is deleted from history and replaced with the idea of business opportunities and
conservation. Imagine, if a large group of people gathered at a single place what would
happen? nothing, no one are going to initiate discussion with strangers just for the sake of
knowledge exchange and trading, we have the internet for that reason. But even if such
awkward situation does occur, it wouldn't last long as a "space". Soon stores, food stands and
gift shops will take over slowly, bit by bit, and such public space will become more of a
meeting spot or a cafeteria, hence the total shift in function. People will paste posters on the
wall, and any free space will be either a place for litter, graffiti or a place for homeless people
to sleep in. Its function is deformed and changed to fit the even more unpleasant crowd of
huge diversity, the satisfaction must be delivered by their own terms.This highly influence
public buildings these days to userp all the remaining space as much as possible, and not that
its neccesarily a bad idea if you are aiming for sustainable design to reduce energy usage and
damage to the world climate, as a way to maximize efficiency and hence produce more
PROFIT. Money is the drive behind architecture now, all we want is a building for sheltering, to
do business, to fit as much people as possible in the smallest area possible. FUNCTIONS are
now results in money.
Monday, September 19, 2011
Le Corbusier and Thai Architecture

After reading Le Corbusier's writing on the importance of

architecture, it have surely enlightened me in terms of
understand of architecture and its history. After truly analyzing
it, i have find some connections to Thai architecture. Firstly,
the masses. In Thai architecture the purest forms tends to be
present only the structure: rectangular, and the pillars are
circular. But that's just a simple analysis of forms. Let me ask
the questions, since Thai architecture heavily circulates around
the idea of decorations, to give a the building such a
extravagance look (in this case the temples) that would amaze
the viewers of its creation, why would it be consider an elementary desire? I mean, true it is
appreciate from its artistic delicacy, but what is wrong with that. The form of the structure are
transmitted via its relation to the light and shadow which is not significant to Thai

architecture, so would you call it a primitive design?

Another link to the essay is the fact that Thai temples is a great example of repetition of
standards, a design which cannot be developed without referring to the strict and binding
rules of its heritage. If one wishes to develop it further one must be taught by a teacher who
would pass down this old and ancient knowledge. By these strict laws, we are forced not to
change the form, due to its insignificance, we are only able to change the form in terms of its
orientation but it must still hold such design and sensation. Nothing can be change, but only
develop, so isn't that the peak of Thai architecture? can it be more?
How can one really pushes this reach for greater design forward? in what fields can we
achieve such things? Though we lack the sense of so call higher intelligence of appreciation
from forms (displayed by the Pyramids, the Coliseum, the Hadrian's Villa etc.) but we do hold
the power of ORDER and PLAN. Thai temples are set up in symmetrical order from its interior
to its exterior, ever inch of details are set in symmetry and the orientation is the of the utmost
important. The plan of such temples determines its BASE, which would develop upwards and
become the temple as we see it. The base of temples are made in layers in combination of
curve and rigid shapes to extend its beauty and its strength. As it extends upwards its then
focused on the support of the roofs, which is very essential to Thai architecture as it is the
ones that define our art. Every curve made by the main structure, the base, would affect the
roof as it will curve along by having extra layers and special ornamentation as according to
the layout. Isn't that something to be appreciated as a sense of RHYTHM? It all fits in terms of
equalization (repetition of columns and ornamentation) compensation (movement of contrary
parts) and its modulation (development).
Isn't that something that counts into the category of true BEAUTY? The ornamentation are
controlled by strict laws and regulations that once break, destroys the whole purpose of the
building. Intention is expressed via decorations, which in our view, seems to dominates the
sense of structure, contour and form. Can you really say that it is without purpose? IT IS A
PLASTIC ART. a single change in ornamentation is a mean of destroying the whole
establishment, because it no longer express it correctly, the purpose is LOST.
Another link i like to make is the cubic space, the view of exterior in combination of the
exterior. These are all planned out pretty well as we can see it in any Thai temple (Wat Phra
Kaew, Wat Benchamabophit (marble temple) etc.) which creates a sense of awe as you take a
step inside. Firstly lets talk about the exterior, the walls are erected to block our view of the
inside, but only limiting us to see the roofs, the most elegant part of the temples, the exterior
beauty. But as you make your way inside the narrow entrance you find yourself viewing the
temple as a whole, seeing every detail it projects from its plan to its top. It was all made this
way for us to appreciate it fully much like the Parthenon and Santa Sophia, where its space is

what gives it its power.

At this point, i was just remind of one example of beautiful form of Thai architecture, however
it was created with a hint of western culture in mind. This was found at the old Faculty of Arts
in Chulalongkorn university, at the connection between the twin buildings of Maha
Chulalongkorn and Maha Wachirawut. The corridor, at first being seen from afar means
nothing to me but merely a passage from one place to another, which at first i question its
existence due to other entrances found along the way, but the architecture knows of it
significance that he would make a gigantic pool or grass lawn in the middle section and force
us to circumvent around it to prevent us from accessing one building to another via these
'other' entrances. This is where i was amazed. I have experienced such awesomeness that Le
Corbusier

Monday, September 5, 2011

Ontology and Mythology
Ancient Greek tends to show, in contrast with our previous class on Egyptian culture, that
architecture are not limited to create something permanent with the idea of everlasting
afterlife attach to it, but the study of life and its glorious moments can be shown through
it.The Egypt convey the very idea of permanence by using architecture as its primary source,
and Greek use architecture as a medium of projecting their culture, history and their ontology

as a secondary medium. Egypt, use architecture as a pencil; Greek, uses architecture as a

paper.
These are bound to happen due to the polar opposite natural factors they have to live with
(Egypt have a repetitive and predictable cycle of 9 month farming and 3 month flooding while
Greek have to endure unpredictable weathers, earthquakes, flood and weak argiculture).
These factors contribute them to create their own way of living to sustain their reign,
repetitive leads to a narrow-minded, uncompromising and unchangeable dogma of serving
the Pharoah only, unpredictable lead to an open-minded and democratic society along with a
clear sense of individualism. As we can see, the ontology of the Greek are heavily influenced
by the fact that they cannot predict their fate, much like life, where one would never know for
certain where one will appear, do or even live or die in the next minute. The preciousness of
life and the human design becomes their way of life and hence transferred onto their
architecture and their arts.
Another thing the Greek tends to include into their architecture are their mythology, both the
content and the characters protrayed within. Examples of those include the Palace of Minos in
Knossos on Crete island where historians tends to believe that the design was inspired by the
tale of the Minotaur. This can be seen from the plan of the sewer system (which was considerd
the first advanced sewer system in the world) which is similar to a labyrinth due to its
complex layout. This also include the painting on the walls depicting a human figure
performing a "bull dance" with a bull, hence reminds us of the minotaur. Along with these
attributes also include the strange shape of the pillars which tends to immitate that of the
human body, a clear exploration into the theme of Arete, the study of balance of body and its
strive for perfection. This can also be seen in the another empire such as the Romans where
they built the Pantheon with the picture of the human eye in mind (building it into a dome
with a oculus on top, immitating the human eye and its pupil)
With the pillars in mind, the portrayal of Arete can also be seen included in the design of the
Doric pillars seen in Hera and Poseidon temple where the amount of flute are different, where
Poseidon tend to have more than those of Hera's due to its neccessitiy to show masculinity
above femininity (this is later easier to distinguish as Ionic pillars are introduced with a
slender body and a curved inwards capital along with an increase in ornmentation to
symbolize femininity and beauty).
Another clear use of mythology and ontology can be seen at Acropolis where the Goddess
Athena and Nike are often seen due to the power of their symbolism and their history. Here we
can also see how the Greeks weave together their history, of defeating the Persian invasion
and fully establish themeselves once again as a strong empire, and mythology, using Nike and
Athena to signify victory and power over the persians (which are also mocked via the use of

the crying maidens carved into the pillars at the temple of Erechtheion to signify the widow of
the enemies).
The example I want to use is something close to my hometown in Cholburi, The Sanctuary of
Truth. This is, according to the local guide that gave me the tour within this amazingly
beautiful architectural gem, neither a palace nor temple but rather a monument to portray
the combination the arts, philosophy and culture of the countries in the area of the south east
asia. This 'monument' is made entirely out of teak wood and every surface of the place are
craved and ornamented depicting Thai mytological creatures like Garudas, Naka and plants
like lotus. The ornaments of creatures tends to convey meaning much like the ones in Greek
architecture, in Thai culture for example, the lotus tends to represent Buddhism and
knowledge. This can also be seen to something also close to us, within the fence of
Chulalongkorn university. In the first literature faculty building (Tewalai building), there tends
to be various creatures from the mythology of Thai culture and one of that include the Naka.
The artist who carved this explained that the Naka was supposed to symbolize the
consumption of knowledge that if you worked hard you will absorb enough knowledge to
prosper.
Another connection seen at the Sanctuary of Truth, is the impermanence of the building. Since
the Greek tends to believe in life and the short and precious moments that it occurs, and
since the only thing predictable in life is death, the end, the idea of impermanece tends to
stand out. The sancturay of truth is a structure made purely out of teak, a strong and sturdy
material resistant to weather and humidity, which tends to inspire the tourists to think of this
structure as something ancient and yet still firm. However, its strength is also its weakness:
the material. Since it is made out of wood, it is inevitable to be infested with termites, and of
course there are ways of maintenance to take care of this issue, but due to its gigantic scale
maintanence can be very difficult and time-consuming. This lead to the incident where the
place had to be close down for repair due to the severe damage done by the termites. For
others, this might seem like an unfortunate event, but in my opinion, this is intentional. The
artist, I think, intened this thing to have a short span of life, considering the location of the
sanctuary to be right on the beach, and also due to its strong yet decomposable material. This
tends to symbolizes the precious of life, that something beautiful can only last for short period
of time, that something with a beginning must have an end.

Monday, October 24, 2011

Ground Zero Mosque

The Ground Zero mosque or the Islamic Cultural centre was planned to be built several blocks
away from the Ground Zero, the site of devastation and remnants of the "retribution" set to
demolish the morale of the US citizens by the Muslim extremists, and have consequently
stirred up a grand scale controversy within the US. Why would a single building, a skyscraper,
be bombarded with criticisms of due to its purpose and location when it hardly resembles the
classic forms of muslim mosques? What are the changes? Why did it change? Here's my
opinion:
The Islamic Art have a very clear and distinct style since the old ages consisting of 4 symbolic
motfis, a skin facading the building and the order of decorations. The 4 motifs consists of:
- Calligraphy - where buildings are text (similar to the Middle Kingdom Egypt) where the
purpose is to wrap the people within the teachings of Allah
- Vegetal patterns (much similar to the Greeks Hellenic times)
- Geometric patterns (shared by various ancient civilizations, ranging from ease of strucutral
construction to symbolism)
- Figure representation but only in secular terms (due to the forbidden rule of depicting the
Gods considered a severe profanity)
Also the idea of "skin" is used as the medium where these motifs would normally appear in,
the facade of the buildings and hallways.
Theres also the orders of their achetype much similar to the orders set by the Greeks, for the
Islamic orders it consists of:
- Tiling - a symmetrical repetition of decoration
- Extensive colonades and arcades
- Arabesque - intricate patterns of imbricated lines
The muslim people used these elements to construct their mosque and masjid in order to
communicate with the people and induce them to remain faithful to their Prophet. This can be

seen in how they would use repetitive patterns of geometrical shapes for example to
symbolizes the greatness of Allah via the projection of implicit INFINITY. This relates to their
forbidden rule of not showing the picture or any representaion of their God but rather include
it subtlely within the Mosque expecially at the skin of the building. The repetitive use of
Geometrical shapes is used to signify INFINITY and ENDLESSNESS via their sheer amount and
sizes (sometimes via the MOIRE EFFECT) because it tends to show no end nor beginning, thus
symbolizing infinity. This idea was also used by the Christians in their Baptistery where it
would be constructed as a octagonal shape seen from the plan view but rather relates to God
in terms of numerology where the number 8 was used to represent the resurrection of Jesus,
infinity = .
Also the combination of the skins and the patterns creating the facade helps the light to be
allowed through and hence including it into the idea of infinity, where it would reflect upon the
floor of the facade and creating the imitation of the infinite pattern. Thus, light signifies Allah.
The form of the mosque, apart from the delicate decorations, consists mainly of the exensive
uses of Domes (called Muqarnas, millions of mini domes, which was used in IWAN plans),
colonades (used in hypostle mosques - sometimes using stolen carinthian columns which is
called "sfolia"), MINERET or the tower of light (high constructions also include the Great
mosque of Samarra which imitates that of the tower of Babel, where the non-believers strive
to reach heaven without going throught the proper rites of passage) and also the idea of
orientation where the mosque or any religious building is to face Mecca (the holy city for the
Islam people, where stands the Ka'aba, the most sacred site of the Islam religion).
These are the main characterisitcs of Islamic archetype, and now that we know what it
consists of we can then analyze the current Islamic cultural centre in NYC. The building clearly
is constructed to imitate the shape of skyscrapers which goes against all of their traditional
archetype of mosques, abandoning the use of domes and colonades and show no sign of the
ancient designs but rather construct it as contemporary skyscraper. Though one can argue
that it takes rather the implicit path of depicting the mosque, a holy site dedicated to holy
figures. This can be shown via its shape, which tends to be in a form of a perfect cube much
like the shape of the Ka'aba but rather extruded to fit with the other buildings on Wall street.
This also explains about the absence in terms of orientation towards the Mecca: the building
itself serves faintly as the Ka'aba, hence the orientation was not neccesary since the site is
stored within the building: the building itself is a manifestation of the sacred site. The
implication of holiness was also kept with the idea of the "skin" which is now the main feature
of the centre, going from top to bottom, however, in a seemingly disorganized patterns unlike
the repetitive geometrical patterns. However it still holds some of the elements from the
traditional archetype. The facade or the skin is, to my eyes, a combination of the Arabesque
and the geometrical shapes in which the lines tends to be highly intricate and decorative
rather than repetitive. Though it lacks the send of symmetry, it tends to still uphold the idea
of INFINITY where the are no beginning nor end to the design of the facade. Also, the facade
includes the play of light, where the light shining through additionally show the relation to God

along with the patterns. We can also say that it takes a modernisitc turn with the idea of
displaying complex form of the facade mixed with the traditional idea of the architecture.
Now that we see how they shift from their traditional style to a more contemporary like
design, we now have to investigate why. In my opinion, the change comes from the idea of
conforming with the context of the surrounding buildings of Wallstreet. To depict a traditional
style of a mosque would only create an eyesore to the viewers, not because the mosque itself
is an eyesore, but rather the fact that it does not BELONG there. Not only that it siginifies the
idea of just bluntly overtaking the area for themselves, it would create enemies much more
than it would gain support. Hence the skyscraper shape to fit in better with the surrounding
areas. Also, it serves as a camouflage mechanism, due to its implicit nature containing the
idea of the Islamic faith in a form of a post modern design, it would be hard to recognize as a
mosque let alone anything to do with Islam. This hiding mechanism helps it to remain blend in
with the site and not to create any attraction towards it but only preserve it for the people
who knows of its purpose. This relates back to the ages of the Early Christians where they
would camouflage their believe in Christ within Roman mosaics and temples: it means
something to the public but means something else for the people who understands them
truly, same goes for this building.
As for the Reaction, its quite an excessive criticism towards something like this. The US
people, after their devastated experience from 9/11 attack, builds up this strong negative
agenda towards the Islam world and creates a clear sense of hate especially from the families
of the people who lost their lives on 9/11. The people supporting the hatred only sees the
building as a sign of Muslim conquering the US as it stands near to the site of the attack, and
to build the mosque immitating the shape of the WTC with a weird looking decoration that
some said looks like a building crashing down or some even went as further as picking some
of the shapes present at the facade as the star of David and hence come up with the
conclusion of the building symbolizing the conquering the Jews. Its of course sounds ridiculous
to the unbiased people around the world but for the US its a low blow, why? because anything
Muslim is considered an attack nowadays. It doesnt matter whether its a building, a book, a
toy or a speech, anything with the word Islam or Muslim only creates a negative atmosphere
for the people of USA. Honestly, if no one tells you what is the building is for would you really
feel any sort of controversy? of course not, but as soon as you heard the word Islam it clicks
into Agenda mode and immediately transform the building into a sign of disecretion to the lost
ones of the 9/11 attack nearby. Its a conforming building designed to fit in with the surround
site, thats all. Nothing more, nothing less.

Monday, October 17, 2011

Religion and architecture
The Greeks uphold of the idea of polytheistic believes is shown by the multiple temples built
in the name of the Gods in the Greek's epoch (Temple of Hera and Temple of Poseidon) which
was incorporated with orders of columns and arrangements to signify its propriety, as
according to Vitruvius. Then in the time of Romans, even if the idea of multiple Gods and
temples are not as significant as their former occupant of the Western world, they tend to fuse
it with the more contemporary ideal of large volume of public spaces and forums. This is
shown in the Pantheon where the 12 gods are shown along the curve of the interior dome in a
symmetrical fashion. The idea of polytheistic tends to be fully explored into a more public
experience rather than a more personal one like the ones where a single god is shown to be
worshipped in a single temple, they tend to be much more open-minded within the Pantheon
where different Gods can be separately worshipped with no conflict amongst the people. The
design of the dome symbolyzes the dogma of the cosmos where the dome is to engulf on top
of a flat surface and having the light shown through to signify the relation with the heavens,
also the dome is design to keep the circulation going and create no obstruction due to
absence of any object in the middle: every statues are visible to the naked eye which can be
compared to that of the Vietnam Memorial in New York.

However, as the time shift and the epoch of the Romans starts to dim and finally crushed by
Emperor Constantine I, the Edict of Milan was made which legislate public practice of Christian
rituals and preachings with no obstruction like they used to when polytheitism was still
dominating the majority of the public. In the early Christian architecture, Byzantine, you can
see how the arrangement and order of the churches are again link with their believes and also
the way they are to worship their singular God, a radical morphing from poly to monotheistic
religion. This is shown how they utilizes the basillica, a place for debating and a court, to
become merely a tool of rendering faith into their zealots using symbolic usage of light via the
Clerestory. Also, the arrangement and program of the interior of the building have changed.
From a place where the people turn to face each other, to be equal amongst one another, the
basilica have the seats set to face only one direction, the priest and ultimately Jesus. This
shows a sense of forceful obedience and clear sense of hierachy between the preaching priest
set up high on the altar awaiting the believers to walk up the nave and sit on the seats facing
him, unable to discuss and ultimately render them powerless

Illumination and Enlightenment

The idea of light of course nowadays are not as much as an impact on the area within an
architectural space in modern age than it was in ancient times due to the invention and
operation of lighting system via electricity. With all the electrical appliances and lighting
system set around the house with a more-than-enough neccessitiy, the idea of lighting in
modern age are more about comfort and efficiency than conveying the messages and
teaching the doctrinal believes. The concept of ligh was considered to be the manisfestation
of divine connection with the world of men. In every epoch of human history, light was a
signicant tools for different cultures with different architecture to utilize and merge with their
buildings.
Eras like Ancient Egypt, Greeks, Byzantine and Gothic shows how light was used differently
but tends to share the same ideological concept and purposes. In Egypt era, the initial phase
of their kingdom, the old kingdom, tends to not really take the idea of light into consideration,
or rather, because it wasnt an important component to be use. In those times, the only
significant buildings are the tombs of the Pharoahs, where light are not present since the user
of such space are not in need for illumination: it wasnt neccessary. But the time passed onto

the New kingdom, pharoahs like Hashepsut tends to fuse the idea of tombs and temples,
which originally part of the mummifying rituals, to be a single complex building containing
both. In addition, as time progresses, the idea of knowledge and history which are essential to
be inherit by the later generations have become much more apparent and were conveyed via
the use of columns in temples, hieroglyphs were imbedded into the columns, acting as text for
teaching the next generations. With this idea in mind, the enduring tradition of closed tombs
have become an open public space for mass usage, hence the introduction to clerestories
which was used to allow light to pass through and illuminate the columns for students to
study the texts carved onto the columns. The very first idea of a library was facilitated with
light to allow public usage.
The idea of doctrinal teaching via light was also explored by the Christian kingdom especially
in the Byzantine and Gothic era, where christianity tends to prosper the most. In Byzantine
churches and Gothic cathedrals, like the Hagia Sophia and the Sainte Chapelle, the idea of
light were used to illuminate the interior in strategic places, like the teaching areas where
apostles would study the words of Christ, light would be use to illuminate those such place,
both for better visualization and conveying doctrinal knowledges via symbolically holy
atmosphere.
In most cultures, the idea of light does convey the meaning of divinity, cultures like the
Romans would use light to represent the kingdom of heaven and how the gods shine the light
of enlightenment onto earth. This was portrayed in the Pantheon via the use of the oculus
which took the cosmological idea into a tangible building (dome over a cube) with the use of
light to convey the heaven.
In earlier cultures however, the idea of symbolical conveyance of divinity was protrayed in a
much more intricate way to stregthen their believe system to become firm and permanent.
This can be seen in the temple of Athena in Acropolis of the Greek and the temple of Abu
Simbel where light were both used to illuminate the interior in a particular fashion on specific
dates. In Abu simbel, light was used to shine onto the sculpture of the gods relating to light
and left out the god of the underworld in the shadow, a simple yet powerful message of power
and permanence of the gods. In the temple of Athena too was exposed to stratigic lighting
system where tlight would shone directly onto the statue of Athena on her birthday,
commerating the victory over the Persian, again, conveying power and permanence.
Knowledge and Elegance via Romanesque Architecture
Universities and colleges which are highly regarded as the top ones of the world, tends to
share a similar link in terms of its architectural expression and projected elegance via the
archetype of the Romanesque era. The Romanesque, a period between the Roman Empire
and the late Byzantine or early Renaissance, is a period in which breaks away from the
consensus idea of unity in terms of style in architecture.
Unlike the classics like the Greeks and Roman or even the early Christians, in the Romanesque
and Medieval epoch tends to be incoherent which each in style and details. But, very similar

to the Egypt and Greek, the context tends to have a heavy influence on the style of design. In
the middle ages, the lands are fragmented into different territories ruled by different lords and
knights, or what is called the Freudian belief system where the peasants within those
territories must work hard labor in exchange for protection against the enemies of their land.
This idea of fragmentation have a heavy influence on the style adopted by universities like
UCLA or Universities of Toronto by the sense of states and provinces, these universities are set
apart from each other, representing not of a single united idea, by rather a unique
representation of their states. This idea of Fragmentation can be use to link the use of
Romanesque architecture on the design of universities by the theme of the strength to be
able to represent the entire state with a single building, a manifestation of territories and
individual lordship.
Another interesting connection is the connection between Museums and Romanesque
architecture in which one adopts the idea of facilitating the idea pilgrimage from another.
During the Medieval period, the act of pilgrimage in churches was very common. This is
because during those times, churches are required to contain a relic within it. Set on the altar
at the apse, these relic were contemplated by pilgrims, hence, the circulation must be
designed to facilitate this need. In this period, the churches aisle runs not only along the nave,
but around the transept and also around the apse, or Ambulatories, which helps the pilgrims
to observe the relic without disturbing the religions rituals. This design in terms of circulation
to satisfy the act of tourism was later adopted by museums due to their similar function of a
flowing circulation without any kind of disturbance for both the tour group and individuals
visiting the museums. This link might explain how the Romanesque archetype was used in
these museums, as a reflection to this link in terms of circulation and pilgrimage.
In addition, the very idea of teaching is a very essential aspect shared by both Universities
and Churches of the Romanesque architectural style. Within churches, often it depicts the
reference to the Holy Bible on Tympanums, capitols, cornices and mosaics. Each components
contribute to the single purpose of teaching the doctrinal knowledge to the believers within
the church about their religion which in retrospect, tends to represent a certain technique of
installing the believes into people not only via the speeches and sermons of the priests, but
also on the architectural decoration which can be use to create a holy and grand atmosphere
to the believers. Hence, this installing believes via the projection of authority and referential
messages. The idea of teaching via details was adopted by universities because this is their
main goal, to envelope the students with knowledge not only via the teachings from teachers
but from the environment.
Roman and Vitruvius
The principle of Vitruvius can be seperate into: Eurythmy, arrangement, propriety, economic,
order etc.

In the pantheon, many of these principles are presented. For example, the dome's interior
tends to show a very clear sense of Eurythmy by how the components decorating it tends to
shrink in size as according to the sloping curve up towards the oculus. This shows how each
components tends to show a very nice connection between them, by allowing the view to be
smooth and in rhythm. Another use of Vitruvius principles is via the propriety, how the whole
dome tends to represent the cosmological belief in Rome, where the dome is set over a flat
plane, this is further explored by how the oculus was used to represent the deities by allowing
the light to shown through from a singular inlet, creating an effect of being engulf under the
eyes of the gods.
The magnificence of indian architecture
For a period of time, I've convinced myself that the Egypt tends to take the cake in terms of
perserverence and ideas of symbolism presented during constructing such wonders of the
world, but after learning about Indian architecture, my opinion starts to shift. The first
example present here is the Borobodur where every inch was delicately carved to represent
buddhas, the idea of numerology was truly explored along with the objective of circulation.
Much like the Acropolis, the Borobodur's arrangement induces the animation feel by how each
layer tends to create different mood to the users and were designed to have one of the most
beautiful interpretation of cosmological believes. Its also important to note how the theories
of Le Corbusier tends to appear here as well, in an eastern architecture. In Le Corbusier's
writing about the true beauty of architecture, he often talks about arrangement and the idea
of volume, where the exterior is as part of the building as the interior, because it is included
within the view of the audience. In this case, the Borobodur's top floor tends to facilitate this
idea by for the first 9 layers your vision were blocked and cannot appreciate the full
landscape, but as you go through the test set by the building, you are rewarded with the
eternally stretching landscape, symbolizing your achievement of Nirvana - enlightened.
Another interesting observation that can be made is about the Taj Mahal, the true testament
of human endeavors for the love of the other. The Taj Mahal was set with the theme of being
seen by all, shown by how it was elevated from the ground, set near the cliff, and located near
the river. Every direction is to be able to contemplate its magnificence. This is due to the
perfect symmetry of the structure, which is especially reflect on the garden of paradise. But
another interesting thing about the Taj Mahal is that it tends to be a perfect reflection, and
this can be shown in so many ways. Its Reflection on the water also creates a perfect
symmetry, and also, if the Black Mahal was ever commisioned, it would truly enter the realm
of perfection, being relfection in every plane known to human being.

Chinese Pavilion

The chinese pavilion tends to reflect various elements present in classical chinese
architectural style. One of the things that jump right out is the use of the red color, which is
the color of luck and wealth and is considered to hold a universally understandable message.
Another link it contains relates back to the temple of Nanyung where the bay are in odd
numbers and that, following the Yingzao-Fashi principle, the platform is elevated from the
ground (a stylobate) as a way to connect with heaven. Another observation that can be made
is the use of numerology which can be seen explicitly on the Dou, or the wood block supports,
and the amount of brackets required, the gong. Here we can see how both the amount of Dou
and the level of tiers tends to use the same number: 6. Number is considered to be a very
lucky number in Chinese culture as it is a number of blessing and happiness.
Now it terms of scale, we can see how humongous the pavilion is, and with this shear size it
maximizes the features that hold dear. The chinese architectural style tends to flourish the
most in the area of imperial and domestic architecture, as seen by how they focuses on the
use of the bracket tiers, which in their culture signify the Emperor's crown. Also, similar to the
layout of the Forbidden city, the scale gradually gets bigger to install the sense of respect and
obedience within people of the magnificent power of the Emperor. Furthermore, it also shows
the theme of expanding horizontally which increases in terms of size and width.
Architecture for the Common Man
The idea of architecture for the working class root back to the time after The Great War, after
the unfathomable defeat followed by a forcefully painful treaty of Versaille, Germany was left
in ruin. No more of the idea of the bourgeois or even class; everyone was poor. Hence emerge
the idea of design for the working class propose by the school of Bauhaus by Gropius,
eliminating those classical systems of design and styles, flat roofs, no decorations, no colors:
starting from zero! This tends to lead it to the idea of functionalism, where it circulates on the
manifesto of "form follows function." However, the same idea have been explored by Vitruvius
centuries ago during the times of the Roman as he investigate and publish his studies on
Greek architecture.
In 1910, during the time of the Vienna succesion, Adolf Loos designed a house which
showcase the distribution of rooms of unequal masses accordingly to their main function and
efficiency: Villa Muller. Adolf Loos uses aspects of Cubism in creating a collection of cubicle
spaces with different volumes, hence creating a unique rhythm and arrangement of
circulation. Each room were designed with different volume, for example the kitchen tends to
have a higher ceiling and larger room than the living room due to the movement required

within. The building were not designed originating from the plan like other conventional
buildigns, but rather in spatial cubes.

Similarly, the idea of designing for the common man can be trace back to the Acropolis
(theres always something to talk about it) which showcase the first ever non-grid design of its
time due to the idea of design specifically for human, not the Gods. Hence the arrangement of
components were made to fit with the viewers circulation and not from the plan view, view of
the Gods as they look down upon Earth. This was made as a commemoration for the victory
over the Persian invasion, the victory of man, not Gods. Each components were designed
seperately to play its part according to our view, pillars are shifted, friezes were slighted etc.
The forms truly follows their function: achieving perfection. As we can see, human tends to
strive for perfection in quite a similar ways sometimes over the course of centuries,
significance of functionality has always been eternal, and it shall be forever.

The Radiant City VS The Suburbs

The Radiant City, the propose city by Le Corbusier, shows the his idea of uniting the
population within a free, bounderless and classless community. His idea of uniting people of
all classess within an equal space stems from the contemporary trend of designing for the
proletrariat instead of the bourgeoisie. He Accomplishes this by arranging the people into the
tall high-rise buildings in order to store their vast amounts without taking up the spaces so
wastefully. Also, Using his 5 rules (support, flat roof, free space interior, horizontal windows,
and free-to-design facade), Le Corbusier was able to design the city to be supported on pilotis,
hence creating spavce beneath for a public space, and in addition uses the progressing floors
for nature and parks for absoluetely everyone in this community. Le Corbusier also design
with the theme "people" in mind judging from how he express the city as a manifestation of a
human body in terms of zone.
How ever, during the 1950, in the United States, suffering from the great depression, it drives
people of the middle class caucasian to the new kind of a Utopia, the suburbs. Initially, these
houses were identical but as the classes of people tends to differ, new design of houses which
a higher level of luxurious elements tends to pop up to facilitate the need. New areas like the
Cul-de-sac were made especially for the wealthy to reside within, a "public" space, though
seem to be for everyone, can only be accessed without interuption by the rich people in the
area. People outside this zone are socially blocked out due to their economic inequality. Also,
in those days, stress were extremely high, man find ways to free themselves via sexuallity,
women via valium and teenages via rebellion. These stresses accompanying to the layout of
the suburbs, a horizontally seperated protoypes houses, living in a confined zone with no clear
sense of public space, paranoia thus builds up as a result. Unlike the free plan of The Radiant
City, these houses were in constant state of fear, spying on other houses and their cars as it
drove by.
From this, we can see how the idea of The Radiant City in confisgating the sense of semifreedom from the residence by confinin them in a vertical oriented position, like an
apartment, only with the fact that the rooms are extremely, much similar to the initial state of
the suburbs, modular. Though seem as if the sense of privacy are prevented, it does though
boosts the clarity of unity in human as they developed their lives in this city. Compared to the
seperated nature of the suburbs, paradoxically advertise about its unity and diversity of
classes living within the same zones, which pushes the concept of privacy to the max, tends
to push people to become overly protective of their territory, destroying the trust people have
for each other. So, which is the actual utopia, a world of united residence within a public

compound or a fragmented zones of different classes houses with a strong sense of

confinement?

Practicallity and Principles

People often uphold the modern architect icons beyond anything else due to how people
around them would appreciate them, much like how the majority knows the significance of the
Mona Lisa and the David, but dont really understands why. The same goes for icons like Le
Corbusier, Behrens, Wright, and Mies. Especially Mies, his works tends to be a perfect
embodiment of the International Style principles, the anti-bourgeous movement shared by a
spectrum of artistic styles which spanned across the world, but though he did uphold it
without a slightest of hesitation, the outcome somehow is often impractical. His ideas on
creating a house for workers is flawed due to the fact that it is too expensive for workers to
live in and that it emits a strong atmosphere of richness and wealth (Barcelona's chair for
instance), which is in no way coorelate to the worker's way of life. It takes the idea of
designing for the proletariat to the limit by basing everything on artistic interpretation, hence
rendering it rather an art piece than a fully functional building.
This also goes for the famous Bauhaus in Chicago designed by Mies, an iconic building to the
architectural community, a masterpiece of beauty stemmed from principles, sadly lacking in
practicallity for general usage and maintainence. Starting with the exterior, the glasses are
not to be touched due to the results in damaging it, and thus have to be replaced at a high
price. In addition to the exterior fiasco, the interior is no different. With the use of beautifully
textured and precious oak seperating walls, it renders the act of pinning up works or any
contact to its inner skin, its main function, an act of damaging or destruction of an modern art
masterpiece. It is so precious that it lacks function. And isnt that bourgeous? Something that
hightens the aspect of luxury (in this case, principle beauty) rather than function (which the
modern architects so much preach on), much similar to how a Rolex though more superior in
terms of looks and charm than a common digital watch, it severely lacks the multi-functional
aspect to the latter.
Another failed attempt at sticking to the principles can be seen from the city of Chardigarh,
designed entirely by Le Corbusier. The implementation of his Radiant City, a theoretically

utopia of perfect harmony, equality and unity, in the atmosphere of the country of India, was
disastrous. Starting with the idea of unity and equality using the idea of high rise aparment of
modular rooms, vast amount of public areas and numerical zoning, was all distorted by the
coup of the military, taking control of all circulations within the city which was intended to be
free for all to access. Speaking of the buildings, the materials used was pure concrete which
results in a high emittance of heat and, especially in the case of a court building, creates a
large audio resonance towards the outside. Also, the proposed hand sculpture that serves as a
meeting place for the city people was set in the middle of a huge concrete plain, one big
analogical frying pan. Though despite all these flaws, the people are happy with it, so in a
way, this was a successful attempt at bring the International Style architecture to an urban
scale.

So does it worth it to stick to the principles entirely without any certain kind of attempts to
UNDERSTAND the so-called worker class? Do they really care about the working class with
these kind of projects or just devote to certain principles to fit in with the general movement?
Some architects Eero Saarinen said no to that with his TWA terminal of the Kennedy airport.
His work was a big f*** you to the movement by how he embodies within the design of the
terminal a shape of an Eagle as a symbolism of the airport relaying an expression of travel,
flight and power. Plus, it also tends to be fully functional to the point that later generations
airports would follow its program and circulation which proved to be highly practical and
effective.
So from this, can we justify that principles are the most important thing in this line of work,
yes if you are looking for acceptance from other artists, no if you really do care about the
workers. Serving for other people, for the masses, now thats a proletariat.
Learning from the Past
Gropius had stated bluntly during the 1920s during his reign as the head of Bauhaus, "start
from zero", with the hope of creating a new age of architecture by scratching all those long
period of human developments in the arts of architecture and design, abolish all those trends
and create a series of tenets of creating architecture that is purely "new". But guess what,
that "new" is boring, and not practical in anyway whatsoever. What do i mean by boring? and
what do i mean by not practical? From the previous post I've made about the impracticality of
international style and its tedious list of do's and donts, its pretty clear how the whole thing
worked out: new leads to blandness in design without any space for variety or personal
touches and with the exaggerated theoretical interpretation of the working class environment
make the outcome building just purely unlivable, only act as a vessel of an "art form" with no

real concern for actual habitation.

Its all these aspect that lead Venturi to disconnect from the modern styles lead by Mies and Le
Corbusier and publish his manifesto for the new age of architecture, "complexity and
contradiction in architecture", stating how it is essential to always reincorporate the ideas of
classical architecture but would treat the modern style with the classical as equivalent. Better
embrace the idea of ambiguity as the mean of taking the next step, due to how something
that serves only 1 function can never be possible. I've learned this during my project last
semester when i was working on a public area that was made to predict the future, not
literally, but rather by designing a place that embrace the possibilities (scenarios) that the
space could experience in the future instead of blindly steering it in the direction WE want
without concern for the outside variables: people, weather, construction flaws etc. Its better to
design something that holds more than one usage and one meaning, to be open to
possiblities of interpretation by people of various culture and religions. Since its impossible to
fit someone in our shoes, why not make it a 1 size fits all? Adjustable to anyone, ambiguous
and flexible to all interpretation. Hence, the revival of symbolism as the mean of expressing
such idea.
Symbolism had been the oldest and primal idea of architecture or any art form as it plays
expressively in the realm of ambiguity (only second to sheltering and living functions) and its
been used in architecture throughout the human history for a reason: it is the vessel that
expresses culture, religion and historical events in itself for the next generations to come. But
of course in histories there are times where symbolism would live over practicality, much
similar to the international style (despite their argument of abandoing symbolism for
functions, its quite clear how the outcome speaks for itself: theory over function).
In ancient Egypt, they initially have the idea to construct a monumental tomb to fit a single
body, a monumental structure that uses years of constructing with millions of slaves at the
disposal to build a construction that serves as an expression of symbolism rather than
functionality (of course they uses the pyramids for observatories as well, but does it need to
be that exaggerated?). Dont get me wrong, i love them pyramids, nothing can match its
awesomeness in terms of symbolism and testament of human devotion for a dogma, but in
terms of a realist, its just over the top. However, eventually the Egypts found this to be too
much a waste and decide to merge the tomb and the temple together to form a complex that
dug deep into the mountains (due to over excessive structure and frequent raiding from early
version of Indiana Jones). Also, the old pyramid tends to show how the Pharoah was set WAY
up and beyond those poor peasants and workers judging from the comparison between the
epic Pyramids and the domestic houses. So, in a way to solve this crisis, they improve the
temples by sculpting teachings on pillars for their people learn about their heritage and
culture, and along with that, set it beneath a clerestory which allow natural light to enlighten
them. Plus, to compensate for the Pyramids with its symbolism of permanence, they uses the
very nature of the mountain to convey the same idea to greater effect along with the design

of figural sculptures depicting their gods and pharoahs in stiff and non-kinetic post, both
signifying permanence alike. Now thats improvement! Thats good design!

Sunday, March 18, 2012

Symmetry and Geometry: renaissance and greek architecture
Renaissance brings with it the ressurection of the roman and greek style of architecture as
they tend to shift away from enlightenment architecture inspired solely via the text of the
Bible and manifest itself according to its focus on numerology, referencial decorations, volume
and lighting effect.
Renaissance, as shown Alberti and Bramante showed us how the architecture are now more
focus on the revival of ancient style of the romans and consequentially the greeks. Another
interesting thing that spawns its style is by Leonardo Da Vinci's Vitruvian Man, from his
interpretation of Vitruvian's writing about the concepts of Greek architecture. In addition,
another important thing that Renaissance architects included in their work is the use of
perspectives and optical illusion.
First observation for comparison can be made easily; modules. Geometry and symmetry
wouldn't be able to exist without the use of modules, which is this case are grids. The grids
are able to dictate the locational installation and orientation of buildings in the Greek's and

Roman's time, help it to shape the city's circulation and system of complete management.
One example this has an effect on is the Fazzi Chapel at Santa Croce in which it models after
the triumph arch (again from the Greek's period of Hellenistic) but uses the idea of modules of
cubes to contribute to the facade, creating a perfect symmetrical shape. This can also be said
about the Ospedale Degli Innocenti where the arches and columns tends to show perfect
symmetry. In terms of plan view, the Church of Santa Spirito also portrays the usage of grids
in the layout of the building where the aisle and the nave and transcpet tends to share
interconnecting symmetryical system of square modules.
Another observation to be made is the use of perspectives. This can be seen in Bramante's St
Maria Presco where he extends into the choir as if its deeper than it suppose to be via
perspective painting. Another example of such technique can be seen in Michaelangelo's
Sistine chapel's fresco painting which in particular he painted God viewing down towards the
viewer down below as if he's high above in heaven by painting him to be put behind a small
door. This can be compared to the perspectives used by the Greeks in the design of Parthenon
where the columns would be shifted accordingly to the viewers perspective at 45 degrees,
plus the use of angulated friezes to illustrate animation and contiuity via perspectives.

Sunday, March 11, 2012

Rem Koolhaas's Delirious New York: Both-and to the Extreme
After talking about the postmodernism and modernism for 3 consecutive weeks, its time to
move forward on the subject of the evolution of Postmodernism via the eye of the
contemporary "king" of architecture; Rem Koolhaas. In his writing, Delirious New York, he
tends to point out how skyscrapers in New York tends to take its own indentity, being a
singular mini city within the city itself. Within these skyscrapers, they are equipped with
various facilities to fullfil what human would want on a regular basis such as food, bathroom,
shopping center, exercise etc. Now, looking back to the original idea of modernism where
buildings are to serve a singular purpose of functionality with the univalent ideology and how
Venturi tends to break off such a movement with his own satirical interpretation via the use of
Both-and design ideas, we can see how architecture of these skycrapers tends to take the turn

for the extreme. The idea of both-and stems from the will to break out of the narrow dogma of
controlling the architecture to be within the boundaries of the architects view and perspective,
you are in their masterpiece and you are bound to be in their rule, but of course the both-and
break off of this via the use of ambiguity, to not be determine definitely and open to
interpretation. These are the 2 extremes in their own way, but as the skycrapers trend tends
to emerge, we can see how they have become a new extreme of the both-and theorem: to
DELIBERATELY store everything within the building. There's no room for interpretation, theres
only room for function, to facilitate everything for everyone at anytime and anywhere. Its the
univalence of univalence.
Personally, as I walked into any building that is considered to be a skyscraper, I already have
the image stored right before i would even enter. I know there would be a canteen for the
workers, that there would be a lobby, there would be an elevator, and there would be coffee
shops. Its just common sense nowadays. The buildings take the form of a minor city by
reducing the radius of human to mobilize in order to facilitate themselves. No more wasting
time walking out of the building to eat something from the restaurant across the streets or
finding some place to work, everything have been thought of in order to facilitate every
needs. In Venturi's complexity and contradiction, we often see how he would a certain goal of
combination, like an alchemist trying to create gold out of thin air. But in this case, the
skyscrapers just up and abandons the idea of combination and go for the quantitative
collection approach, which though facilitate everyone, it contrarily dilute its own meaning and
identity.

Sunday, March 4, 2012

Contemporary Practices of Complexity and Contradiction
In the world of Architecture, it is possible that Venturi possess the most ironic style in terms of
design and its purpose. These examples can be found in his Guild House project and also the
the Sainsbury wing of the London National Gallery. As oppose to the contemporary styles of
modern architecture, as mentioned before, Venturi would create something that is BOTH

classical AND modern as a way to conform to the style of modern he disagrees in the way he
sees fit. By doing this, he declared his stand point to be on the verge of the new and the old
by combining them in an intentionally and destructively irrational way. This can be seen in the
Guild House via the coating of the atennaes in gold to express the richness within the
ordinary, insertion of an arch which possess no structural purposes, and a grand entrance
which is decorated with a mundane bilboard imprinted with its name. As for the London
National Gallery, he uses combination of greek carinthian columns and functionless opaque
windows arranged in a frangmented non-equal positions to express the inclusion of classical
elements but break out of both its original function and the modern manisfesto of "form from
function". Though these examples seems to doesnt make sense from an objective view, but
via the perspective of the architect who wishes to break out of the contemporary form so
semi-subtlely.
This kind of practice can also be seen in many parts of Thailand for various purposes and
various intentions. The most prominent kind would be to REFERENCE the historical context
within modern buildings. This can be seen in various universities and museum as they would
attempt to incorporate the historical context of the site or the building it modelled after. One
example would be the new Faculty of Arts of Chulalongkorn which was built to commemorate
the 77th year anniversary of the University and to the original Faculty of Arts. The original
building possess a strong sense of Thai traditional style building design for example the
elevated base (much similar to greeks stlyobate), the decoration of the building mimicking
mythical beasts and emblems referencing the Kings and to express royalty and significance.
As for the new building, though taking the form of a typical office building, it incorporates
elements of the past to relate to the original building nearby by using elevated base and
foundation and imprints the emblem of the university on the modular facade. Though these
elements holds no particular significance in function, it does possess elements of the past as
the mean of reference to allow the people to interpret it singularly as a building that merges
the past and the present and to interpret it in addition to the original building, express the
kind of loyalty to the past and history of the university, thus render it complex and
contradicting postmodern building via its merging elements.

Baroque-ing the rules

Baroque, the mishaped pearl of architecture, is a strong testament to the way of postmodernism due to its strength in expressing the merging of juxtaposed elements of

order and chaos. Unlike the age of reinaissance where everything was based on
geometrical correctness and symmetry, use of circle and squares which stems from
the idea of the Vitruvian man as illustrate by Leonardo Da Vinci. Its a common
knowledge that the modernist "masters" just hate the hell out of Barouqe, and it
makes sense, I mean, every part of the Baroque church is just a testament of showing
off their power, no different from when the Egypt's gigantic Pyramids, a juxtaposed of
the greatest achievement of projecting power and symbolism but the greatest failure
of an excuse for a tomb (its basically a big signpost saying "I'm rich and powerful,
please come by and rob every piece of gold I have in my totally secure safe"). So of
course it comes to no surprise that the modernist sees this as a purely aesthetic piece
of junk that serves no purpose rather than just a projection of wealth and power. Its
too much. Plus the deforming of shapes, bending, crushing, squashing of forms,
merging of columns and pillars are just there to act as a tool of vanity. But isnt that
amazing?
I mean, its exactly what post-modern took as a way to design, an ambiguous space,
not by its function but by its aesthetics, the function was clear and every baroque
churches achieved that: to draw people into the church via the means of beauty and
power. So in a way, Baroque settles somewhere between Modernism and Postmodernism, the function and practicallity is singular, much like modernsim, though
lean more towards a spiritual and psychological aspect, and use the idea of
juxtaposing elements of order, pillars. walls, porticos, crowns, all those pass down by
the idea of logos from the Greeks and merge them with contemporary technology in
construction to be able to merge them together: using the past to define the present.
Like the works of Boromini which merges the collumns with the ceiling, sealing away
the expression of structure with pure aesthetics. Or the personalization of one's skills
and passion in the theatrical field like Bernini which creates Tableau of actions at once
side of the apse to communicate with the viewers a rather poweful scenes of Jesus
and Mary.
The interesting thing about the shift from the Renaissance to the Baroque is quite
eerily similar to the shift from Modernism to Post-modernism, like what i mention
above already about the merging of elements of chaos and order, the use of
geometrical shapes can also be changed in order to create a sense of symbolism. The
clearest observation that can be made is the Santa Spirito by Brunelleschi and the
Quatro Fontane by Boromini. Both use geometrical shapes, but conceived them from a
different aspect and thus create a different effect. One uses shapes to distinguish the
hierachy of space via increasing in size the grid form of squares, and the other uses

triangular shape as the mean to both translate the idea of the holy trinity and to
construct a perspective space. One made for a single purpose, and the other have a
both-and characteristics. One modern, one post-modern.
True Lies - the architectural version
The age of enlightenment emphasizes on the constant scientific discoveries and the
intention of seeking the real truth rather than those presented by religion, because
now, ladies and gentlemen, the truth is the legitimate source of authority. The
predominance on philosophical pragmatism (a philosophical movement that includes
those who claim that an ideology or proposition is true if it works satisfactorily, that
the meaning of a proposition is to be found in the practical consequences of accepting
it, and that unpractical ideas are to be rejected) and empiricism (a theoy of knowledge
concerning the knowledge of something gained from sensory experience) which is
combine with scientific inquiry to apply on the industrial endeavors. Modernity. This
originated mainly from the agricultural revolution in mid 18th century about the
system of using mechanical seed drill, resulting in healthier people and thus increase
in the population. But those is not what i want to talk about, I'm more interest in the
counter attack to that movement which is the romanticism movement. A movement
stem on the idea of how the strongest emotion comes from the idea of insignificance
via infinite volume and repetition.
It is the similar to Baroque which utilizes the idea of affection - not being able to
absorb everything via single visit, thus result in multiple visits from individuals to be
able to "see" everything". Baroque appealed to this idea by using intricate details and
materials to make everything so rich in complex decorations, making everything
interesting. This though was countered heavily by Le Corbusier as to how it is a pure
expression of vanity, much similar to his critique of the Palace of Versailles which use
the same idea of decoration that the viewers are unable to absorb the volume
properly both the inside and the outside, it is too large and too complex for the human
eye to obtain them properly, thus cutting any connection to human sensory
experiences.
Piranesi was also one of the important contributors of these movements as due to his
venture in Rome, studying the ruins of previous great empires in ancient epochs. His
rendering of the ruins was all about the ruins and its interaction with light, presenting
it as it is, and not what it used to be in its glorious days. This was his mean of
critiquing the power and authority as evidence of these ruins (Pompei for example)
that they would one day decay no matter how powerful they are. The ruins interact
with nature, it was dominated by the greater power of nature, it is the past, the past is

the truth, the truth is the power, and power is what any wealthy man wants of course.
Romanticism works like those of Etienne and Bedoux are quite interesting as to how
they are all theoretical propositions that stems from the idea of merging nature with
manmade structures that somehow look like ruins. The use of cylinder at the river
source picture or the cenotaph are great examples for this idea of the absolute truth,
one depends on nature to carry out its function, it merely coexists. The idea of
utilizing nature to carry out its symbolical means is also interesting like in that of the
Isaac Newton Tomb in which the large volume sphere represents the universe and the
lattern in the middle represent the sun, illuminating the room tomb at night and
during the day utilizes holes that angled towards the middle to represent the
illuminating stars. Very nice ideas in my opinion, but who are you trying to impress? A
juxtaposition of night and day, utilizing manmade objects to contain and allow nature
to illuminate the tomb, bringing nature into the space. This of course can be relate to
that of the Pyramid (again) by how the tomb was made based on the idea of death of
a single individual, the size in contrast to the function creates a sense of insignificance
to the people around, the use of size to convey idea of unfathomable powers is just
universal and forever. It is the symbolic tool that human always resort to as the mean
to express their authority.
The logic of Romanticism can be easily apply to the Pyramid by how the size were
created via the layering of large limestones to create a manifestation of absolute
authority, plus, the "unseen" tends to be the most significant as seen in the Pyramid
of Giza where the Pharoahs tomb's was carved out of granite stones using primitive
tools and a whole of dediction from the workers. These elements is what make the
Pyramid so damn awesome that human like us these day tends to upheld it as one of
the greatest achievement despite its flawed function of being a large-ass safe. We just
through that logic out the window, fuck pragmaticism, fuck function, hello ultimate
power and self-inducted insignificance. The humanity.

Eclecticism in Southeast Asia

For this blog, i compare and contrast two buildings that utilizes national and historical
forms and elements in associationalism of a tenency to create architecture with
symbolic association. These are the Rektorat building of University of Indonesia and
my own faculty of architecture at Chulalongkorn University.

he aspect these buildings share is the use of

nationalism elements incorporating with
modern architecture in order to create a
regional and emblematic building. The most
obvious, for the Rektorat, would be the
merging of the geometrical and functionality
of modernism with the iconic pagoda form of
Indonesia. Since the times of the Javas (8th
10th) the idea of layering floors on a
centralized plan was very widespread, this
can be seen in the Prambanan temple, a Hindu temple without the Mandapa, and also
the Borobudur. Both the idea of pagoda, centralized plan and the use of the Shikhara
can be seen in the design of the Rektorat. The iconic design merging with modernism
can be observed firstly by the use of materials of tiling and concrete which contrast
them vividly unlike traditional style of pagodas, also it rather look like a typical house
roofing style making it much less of a religious building and more secular, connecting
with its usage as a main building of the campus . Another merging aspect is the
structure which can be shown how the pagodas are constructed by having been
separated into 2 sides, which in reality act as an extension from the main structure
within which is a typical box shape building supporting the Shikhara roofing. This
allows the glass facade middle section to
receive sunlight and not depend too much
on electricity, and since its oriented
towards the south the glass faade can
surely utilize the light to its full potential.
Also, the pagodas are kept at the same size
throughout the building which is unlike the
Java style pagodas that gets smaller as it
reaches the top. This is an another idea of
modernism which is modularity as portray
by masters such as Gropius in his Bauhaus design, which this design, similar to that of
Bauhaus, is portrayed by the use of modular windows.
As for the Faculty of Architecture, the use of national style of architecture is much
more concealed than and not as expressive as those of the Rektorat, but rather lean
more towards modernism architectural style. The first observation of incorporating
modernism style with Thai architectural style is the front entrance faade which uses

tall pillars, which is very common in Thai temples, to allow light to enter the space
within. The orientation is towards the south so as the sun sits in the position at its
highest peak at midday; it can easily enter the space within the faculty via the use of
the pillars which is very similar to that of the Rektorat glass faade orienting towards
the south. In contrast to the Rektorats clear usage of pagodas, Shikhara and
centralized plan, the architecture faculty tends to be lacking the significant usage of
Thai roof which is seen in other buildings within the vicinity of Chulalongkorn
university such as the Dhevalai building and the Chulalongkorn University Auditorium.
This however was addressed cleverly in order to uphold the idea of modernism
portrayed by Mies and Le Corbusier which heavily utilizes flat roofs as their main
principles , which in the principles of the International style, pitched roof were
considered bourgeois and was refrained from being used in this style. The ideology
was compromised of course, as similar to the compromise between the pagoda and
Gropiuss principle of modularity , this time the Faculty uses an extremely low pitched
roof in order to still hold the same function of letting rain water runs along the roof
yet, if viewed from below it would seem hidden from sight and presents itself to be
more of a flat roof design, in this way, the idea of perspective was used to accentuate
the usage of modernism. Also, on the pillars it presents a small hint of Thai traditional
style of aesthetics which is very common on the pillars crown. The decoration can
easily be unnoticed due to its mere expression via protruded simplified Thai patterns.
This can also be seen at the front entrance above the door, the diagonal square was
cut at each side and at the middle to form the traditional style of portraying lotus,
the Buddhist symbol of knowledge. These simplified aesthetic patterns were merged
with modernism style of simplifying things and minimizing decorations which was also
deemed bourgeois

The key
The emergence of artistic movement such as Art-Noveou also marked as the
emergence of one of the most unique architect of the19th century, Antonio Gaudi. His
unconventional ways of design buildings root deep into not just the result, but also the
methods of experimentation, the design of traditional aspect such as plan, facade,
windows and even doors. Everything was challenged into an unconventional ways of
design. The buildings tends to be curved and organic, as if created out of stucco and
sculpted by the hands of artists, not only that, the use of tiling was also one of his
traits as to how they create an effect of un-uniformity within one object, as if its
constructed from a million pieces of jigsaws from different pictures. His use of
contemporary technology of construction and material to create something that is
natural, merging nature and manmade via materiality and methodology. But those are
just the toppings on a sundae, the real magic behind his works are the initial
experimentation and act of constructing them.
I have a fair share with drawing some of his works, especially the columns, the details
of these traditional elements, are just magnificent and overwhelming that I am unable
to complete it due to its shear complexity of details that took at least 3 hours to get
one column done. This reminds me of the time I study about serialism, the idea of
carrying out the same theme of modules with slight alterations, like putting different
integars through an equation, but also, serialism can also be the ACT of making
something that takes time and a lot of patience to complete. This can be directly
applied to the works of Antonio Gaudi. Its just a great projection of human endeavors
of creating something natural, trying to reach something that cannot be created easily
like life and plants, as if we are trying to reach the powers of the Gods, climbing up
the tower of Babel to reach the realm of immortality. We are trying to out done
ourselves by pushing our capabilities to the outer limits.
Another interesting about his works are the methods. The best example for this would
be the Sagrada Familia in which he hangs weights using chains and study the form of
it and the apply it to towers of the church by turning the model upside down. Also, in
the columns, he utilizes geometrical shapes of different sides, from circles, to squares,
to star shaped layers and merge them all in layers.
This is a clear juxtaposition of the conscious and the unconscious. A very similar kind
of work we do in our own studio, where we must venture through a course of months

and months of work and experimentation to arrive at the most suitable form fitting
with our own style and purpose. These are the "charette" part, where we must put all
our strength into it to produce the best solution of pleasing our clients, the Ajarns,
with just a 10 min presentation. The same thing goes for Antonio Gaudi's work and
many works nowadays where the design stems from series of process, hours after
hours after hours of work, to reach the certain unknown destination. The conscious is
what the client clearly see and take as the main theme of the design, the things that
caught their eyes, and as for the unconscious is what the architect sees, the methods,
the structure, the finishes, the planning, the psychological aspect. That all remain
unseen yet experienced every day. They live outside the realm of consciousness and
reside in the details, they require people who "gives a shit" to be exposed and
acknowledged as a design element. Was it worth it? yes it does. If it pleases the client,
it doesnt matter how many hours you spent, its just an outcome, not the experience.
And thats what separates good architects from greater ones, the attention to details,
both seen and unseen, something so powerful that it pulls people into caring of the
project and want to know more, some elements that induce the teachers to ask
questions about and critique about, those elements that "hook" people to the project
is the key. Find it, use it, and enjoy.

The Home Manifesto: the juxtaposition phenomenon

Introduction
What is architecture? The first question I ask myself the minute I chose to study in this
field of arts. I never had an experience in this field either the technical drawings or
common knowledge about any architects. I was quite blank in this field so to say. After
studying it for a year in the area of tools and skills along, developing concepts, spent
torturous hours working to meet the dead line and to finally celebrate after each
project submission, I had quite what I thought at the time to be a clear meaning of
architecture, it was just crude combination of translating concept of intangibility the
parameters into a tangible object that can be seen, understand, and touch. A
product that communicates via sensory experience. However, as after studying in the
2nd year, learning history of architecture from the very origin of ancient Egypt to the
very present of architectural movement of Post Modernism, also, correlating this with
the newest project of the Home Manifesto, it starts to become apparent to me, at this
stage, of what architecture really is.
The architecture of HOME
Stemming from the times of the ancient Egypt and Greece, all we studied was all
about the temples and tombs that was designed to facilitate the people of being able
to pay respect to their Gods. But as the study of the field of architecture history
continues, I acknowledged that those elements present in the significant architectural
achievement all roots in the design of domestic buildings the design of houses are
the basis of which each society would depict their own concept of a sacred
construction. It makes a lot of sense really, since the first thing human in the first age
would do is to establish a place to live, a place that when a human being finds
shelter it comforts itself with the notion of protection. They cannot see everything
within places like forests or ocean, they are defenseless in those realms, thus they are

obliged to construct something of their own, something they know and something can
control. That is home in its most original and basic sense. Thus, to me, essentially,
Architecture is HOME.
Home is a place of non-existence that we desire when departed and
indifferent when we obtain
This is the passage I written as the initial and final understanding of home. It came
from my trip to military training for a full week in the mountains, sleeping in tents,
eating on the ground, training with strangers who later become friends. Its out of
comfort zone, out of my own control, living in the environment where I dont make the
rules. Of course the picture of home tends to become apparent in my since day one.
And as I progress, so does the vividness of the house proportionally. Until the last day,
my vision of my house was so vivid I felt as if its right in front of me yet so far. As I
reach the front gate, my heart pounded, as I walk up the steps my breath accelerated,
and as I push open the door everything was so precious, a subliminal sensation rush
through my heard like a torrent of gold, I jumped on my bed, kissed my computer and
immediately throw myself into the shower for at least an hour while singing. Finally, I
sat down onto my sofa and turn on my favorite channel and thats it. That feeling of
sublime was gone, in a blink of an eye, as if the training never existed and I never left
my house. I didnt notice it at first but now I do, as I look back to that incident or any
incident of everyday. After a hard day of work, all I can think of is the softness of my
bed, but when I actually lay upon it, it already doesnt matter to me. And that to me is
the true identity of HOME. Its a moment in time where the ball bouncing between
the plane of my domicile and the outdoors would suspend in the air, that building
sensation of climatic effect as it escalates towards the highest point for such a small
period of time before it immediately drop down to the feeling of passivity.
I want to feel that sensation again, but how? Thats the first question that popped into
my head as I chose this as my meaning of HOME, and the solution lies within the
tome call The Poetics of Space by Gaston Bachelard. As I read through them, I found
many interesting theories concerning the identity of each space within the house: how
we fear the basement and not the attic despite their similar function is because is
expose to light and one is not; and how door knobs are consider as the mean to open
whereas key is the mean to close though they both serve for the same purpose. My
claim for the feeling of the HOME phenomenon was supported by Gaston Bachelard in
his quote saying that the feeling or urging for such a feeling is accentuates by being cast
out of their own universe but also, as I read further he also mentions how the feeling of

being protected from the surrounding nature can also act as a catalyst for such a
phenomenon, for example, the feeling you have while the rain is storming on the outside yet
the inside of your house all remain calm and passive. The activeness of nature interacting
with passiveness of the house does trigger that same phenomenon and I took it as a personal
mission to accomplish for my HOME design.
Juxtaposition and Ambiguity: critique on modernism
In support to this theme of activeness and passiveness, I also included the knowledge I had
from writing an analytical essay on the works of Herzog & De Meuron in the terms of
juxtaposition of elements. This stems from the very idea of Post-Modernism as explained by
Venturis Manifesto Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture which illustrate the idea of
architecture being ambiguous rather than clear and practical, that it needs an opposing force
to be able to connect with human beings on a consensus level rather than living in a space
that was design with a start from zero concept in which all sorts of decoration, the
expression of the human endeavors towards arts, was diminished into materiality and
lighting. Human beings cannot live in a place simplified to the core, since their views on the
concept of HOME are all individualistic and cannot be captured within a simple prototype of
houses. Though I must admit the idea of form follow function is undeniable, but the term is
too loose since what do you mean by function? Is it something tangible only? Or can it be an
intangible?
Of course in the perspective of the modernist masters, the term function mainly refer to the
idea of industrial laborers and their hardship of working which merges with the idea of lacking
resources to design or even built something that is expensive, thus they chose the path
present to them at that time: design for the proletariat. Which is very understandable, but
after a while they went too far beyond their initial ignition like BehrenssAEG turbine factory
which was designed to facilitate the needs of the workers by using a large glass window at the
gable (which also looks like a tympanium) to allow light into the space as well as the
exposition of the structure system. They suddenly headed towards the direction of poetic
analysis in which they are more focused on designing a house that follows a certain concept
conceived from layers after layers of simple desires of pure practicality being translated into
an algorithmic interpretation of function. Using pure materials with no finishing like
concrete? Its pure yes but its not effective when concrete interacts directly with the hot sun
of India Mr. Le Corbusier. Your design exposes the idea of free plan and act as the
manifestation of the greatest architectural achievement in 20 th century? Im sorry to say Mr.
Mies Van Der Rohe that your Bauhaus is just a fail product of pure theory with no particular
ingredients of actual usage by human beings thrown into that mixture of less is more.
Less is a bore, or rather my own version, less is abhorred. Its the same thing with the
statue of David or the Mona Lisa, why are they so important? Because you know about those
details that Davids hand is larger than normal human size to fit with the idea of fighting

giants or that his facial expression is just pure fear. No, they just follow a trend of obedience
from the mass as to subjecting it as significant without any particular reason. They are
basically monuments. They are there to exist as a mean to control society within the
boundaries they established, they are controlling tools. Not just the modernist who made
these mistakes but it also applies to the pyramids in Egypt serving as an expression of
absolute of Pharaoh and as a symbolical means of safe journey to the kingdom of heaven
despite its inability to defend itself from thieves coming to rob the place dry (which luckily
they finally fixed that problem by extending it into the mountains as an alternative to express
power as by merging with nature). Unluckily, the masters somehow found themselves fallen
into the same hole.
Juxtaposition in Architecture
Where were we? Oh yes, juxtaposition. Juxtaposition is one of the strongest ingredients that
contemporary architects both knowingly and unknowingly included into their design since the
time of the both-and perspective was constructed so firmly by Venturi. As for my HOME, my
juxtaposing elements were Activeness and Passiveness, the element of uncontrollable
force of nature interacting with the element of controllability of the house. But as I review the
lessons Ive learned about the history of architecture, it tends to be more apparent to me that
the idea of juxtaposition in architecture as a whole has always been there, hidden within each
building of the past to present and possibly, of the future. Plus, my main method of working
always comes from collecting data, analyzes them, and then categorizes them. These
juxtapositional elements in the realm of architecture consist of present and past, public and
private, natural and artificial, structure and beauty. But all those was already addressed by
great architects like Rem Koolhaas, Robert Venturi, Peter Eisenman, Le Corbusier, Herzog and
De Meuron in their manifestos, some I even addressed in my various essays in the past. Thus,
I am left to think of the one that rather seems original, or at least, seems most appealing to
me and the work I do. The perfect juxtapositional element for HOME: the merging of
consciousness and the unconsciousness.

Consciousness | Unconsciousness
The consciousness I refer to is the first thing they acknowledge about a space, the initial
sensation or observation they made on a building, both inside and outside. The most apparent
object to be notice, the most vivid consciousness for human to absorb is the form. Its the
very body of the building, and beautiful or unconventional always grab the attention of people
and lure them into it despite its actual usage or the story behind it, the unnoticed, the
unconscious. To put into an analogy, is that the form act as the cover of the book, and like the
old saying, dont judge books by its cover, same goes for architecture. The consciousness

acts as the easiest connection human would have to something and the form determines such
act so fiercely. Works like the Disney Concert Hall or the Sydney Opera were architectural
icons due to their shear awkward form and not by the failure of its function or its connection
to the context (one blinds people from a distance and one is just monumental financial
failure). But of course people overlook those since they look cool and awesome. I mean,
they got commissioned and they got paid so who cares right?
Another clear example of juxtaposing between consciousness and unconsciousness can be
seen in the work of Herzog and De Meuron such as the De Young Museum in which they
utilizes the greenery of the site as the main ingredient of their faade by pushing it through
various stages of transformation to arrive at a final product which was a faade consisting of
protruding and embedded circles and circular cuts all in different sizes which in result creates
a very interesting looking faade that translate the light into the space in such a seemingly
randomized pattern. A juxtaposition of the conscious, the odd patterned faade grabbing the
attention of the viewers, and the unconscious, the process of transformation. The same goes
for the Santa Spirito Church by Brunelleschi in which he utilizes the square and push it
through the transformation of scaling it in mathematical order, or the unconventional process
of designing the layers for the Sagrada Familias columns which consists of shapes all differ in
shape and form emerging towards the top, or the great architectural design of the Acropolis in
which the circulation plans were made to be unconsciously conceived from the idea of not
following Gods view but rather the humans view and allow people to walk upon it
unknowingly of its significance, or the Parthenon in which the columns were shift by mere
inches to fit with the perfect perspective of the human eye as well as the tilted frieze. These
juxtaposition of what is noticed emerges from the unnoticed, they are something us architects
respects each other for, their soul put into work on something they give a damn about to
produce something that make people want to give a damn, thats what I would call a
successful play on the human mind.
The same idea applies to HOME, the juxtaposition of consciousness and unconsciousness are
rather translated into a new language though. The consciousness resides in the main function
of the house, the shelter that protects us from the surrounding hazards, the consciousness
exist within the vicinity of our vision of the house as to the space of the house, the material,
the doors, the stairs, the rooms, the furniture, the decorations. These are everything we
experience everyday in our own domicile, but what makes them special resides in a much
more psychological plane of existence. The memories, or to be exact, the learning. During my
lifetime, I have moved to 3 different houses: a large wooden house, a small suburban house,
and a family house which Im currently residing in as I write this manifesto. For some reason,
the large wooden house, or rather a mansion, which I spent all of my childhood in, somehow
render itself as my most vivid and fondest memory of HOME, its my perfect vision for a house
if I ever told to design one. The red wooden floor that reflects the incoming light, the wooden
walls that have a grid form pattern or even the wooden beams and columns are still there in

my mind, and unconsciously, I always reside to the use of wood as my main ingredient for
creating my own ideal HOME. I didnt make it out of the consensus appreciation of wood being
the best material for houses, but I chose it because its the first thing that come to mind, and
its thing that I find most comfortable living in. Thats the unconsciousness I was talking about,
our first house is always our best vision of HOME, no matter what state it was, we learned
everything there unknowingly and still uses it in our present days. Our house teaches us
about the function of things, the basic function of opening, closing, looking, and observing of
things. What are walls, what are doors, what are windows, what are ceilings, what are
basements. Not only that, but also weve learned every reflexes we would require in our life
here at home while we walk up and down the step. The house is passively teaching us how to
be active, how to handle to world outside without any problems. Thats my idea of HOME, it is
a place in which it teaches us the lessons of life without uttering a word or screeching its voice
via its aesthetic beauty saying look at me! Look at me! Look at how pretty I am! Look at how
grand I am. Those are not HOME, a truly successful HOME must be able to teach us, must be
able to make us question things, it must be ambiguous, it must be a juxtaposition to make us
wonder, to make us curious, and ultimately to make us learn.
The concept of HOME can also be transfer to other types of building like churches, how you
say? Same thing, consciousness and unconsciousness. The consciousness again is the idea of
being in church listening to sermons, sitting in rows all facing the same way towards the altar
listening to the priest, even though Im an Atheist, sitting in that formation observing the
intricate and detailed decoration of the church and listening to the sermons, I must say I
understand where the concept of faith comes from. This is where the unconsciousness comes
into play, though it doesnt teaches us something we use in daily life like our houses, but it
does translate the very idea of their religion unconsciously into our mind. The decorations
depicting stories from the holy book, the symbolic use of light as the mean to connect to god
and the grandness of structure large in volume and rich in detail that it slowly but surely
engulf us into the very sense of sacredness and ultimately, total obedience. The same goes
any religious building really, Buddhists design such as the Stupas that simulates the idea of
cosmology, the idea of reaching Nirvana at the Borobudur via multiple layers of floors
representing the steps to reach the heavens, the idea of merging itself with nature by digging
into the mountains. Or the Islamic idea of using repetition as the mean to convey infinity, the
decorations that depict calligraphy of teachings, profound and amazing repetition of shapes
and forms that signify the feeling of sublime in the mind of the believers. Ive written an essay
on this phenomenon of building beliefs, on how a fantastical city such as the Minas Tirith was
able to convey such a strong sense of an original design by merging architectural elements
from various epochs which are unconventional when merged together creates an
unconsciousness effect of picturing them as a new kind of architecture. They are HOME, they
are the teaching tools that reach us at the back of our mind and able to shape our identity as
it sees fit, the power of unfathomable magnitude was there to guide us towards the

destination we can never expect or achieved without its existence. Just like Mies said, God is
in the detail, that one sir I do agree with you. Touch