 |
 |
 |
 Whither tradition or modernity, east or west? Is it possible for architecture in Asia to move beyond knee-jerk reactions of the politics of identity? If so, what are the alternative ways of framing architectural discourse in Asia? The refrain in architectural discourse over the past ten years in Asia had been dominated by issues of national, cultural, ethnic, and religious identities. This is symptomatic of a larger ideological positioning in the context of rapid economic development, modernisation of economies, the consequential urbanisation that this brings and in some countries, the recent processes of decolonisation. Tradition and modernity or east and west are polarised constantly to articulate this divide in simplified and ideologically accessible terms. Architecturally, these polar pairs are mediated by various strategies and operations, generally falling under the 'critical regionalism' discourse of Kenneth Frampton, Tzonis and Lefaivre. In the first phase of this resolution, these generally involve some form of combination between indigenous architectural traditions, and a universalised modern one. The works of an older generation of Asian architects such as Charles Correa, Balkrishna Doshi, Geoffrey Bawa, Hassan Fathy and Jimmy Lim, have been systematically canonised as exemplary responses to the issues of identity and specificity as resistance against the hegemony of Eurocentric dominance by Asian and international publications and awards. They range from appropriating indigenous architectural traditions to fit new programmes in terms of their spatial and formal characteristics (such as resort hotels and government buildings), adaptation of such traditions in parts (for instance, applying some iconographic elements onto new buildings), or interpreting them to match contemporary aesthetic sensibilities in terms of their construction methods or use of materials. In so doing, the value of continuity is uplifted. In Tzonis and Lefaivre's strategy, the criticality in such architecture comes from simultaneously resisting against the erosion of local culture and regression into nostalgic recall by a 'critical' "removing of regional elements from their natural contexts so as to defamiliarise them and create an effect of estrangementS based on the Russian formalist theory of 'making strange'." Alan Colqhoun in a critique of this stance, points out that basically, its intentions is the preservation of 'difference' in a world of increasing erosion of inexorable homogenisation. next---- >> <-- previous |
||