Not only Tradition and its Historical Values, but also Geographical Locality

Galih W. Pangarsa



What is the different between Quebeq and Seoul?

(The video [19MB in swf format] is a part of my keynote speech presentation on SENVAR 12, November 10, Brawijaya University; click your refresh button to replay the video)



n Venice Biennale 2010, Rem Koolhaas, a practising architect and also a professor in Practice of Architecture and Urban Design at the Graduate School of Design at Harvard University USA, categorized his works with OMA. They noted: “OMA and AMO has been obsessed, from the beginning, with the past. Our initial idea for this exhibition was to focus on 26 projects that have not been presented before as a body of work concerned with time and history. In this room, we show the documentary debris of these efforts. But 2010 is the perfect intersection of two tendencies that will have so-far untheorised implications for architecture: the ambition of the global taskforce of ‘preservation’ to rescue larger and larger territories of the planet, and the – corresponding? – global rage to eliminate the evidence of the postwar period of architecture as a social project. In the second room, we show the wrenching simultaneity of preservation and destruction that is destroying any sense of a linear evolution of time.”

Is past tradition and its historical values must constrain the dynamic of today societies? Indeed history is neither linear nor like geological layers. It is easier to comprehend if we pictured it as a constellation or nebulas: one that distances within thousands of light years from uscan be seen at the same time with our moon. Past tradition can also live in peace alongside current lifestyle. The difficulty lies in adjusting or arranging the cultural strategies.

What is certain, in observing sustainability in architecture as the entity of energy, time, and space , there are some notes need to be drawn, as follows:

Architecture is never about single building or dead monument; architecture is a part of built-environment, and also a part of living culture. Thus, architecture is both societally and ecologically dynamic, spatially and temporarily open ending. Unfortunately, too many architecture education studios in Indonesia, and apparently in other places around the world, implicitly teach their student the outlook that architecture is a “work that thoroughly complete”. In people’s lives reality everywhere, a building is never ‘dead’: it always adjusts to the dynamic of life. Few buildings served as a real life texbook; in a way its authenticity is strictly maintained. Are all the student taught to serve that little fraction of needs? Back to Koolhas/OMA’s note, is it inappropriate to place architecture as social project for students (or future architects)? Even the natural environment surrounding an architecture is ever changing and diverse. Each locality is unique. It is not too easy to apply one place experience to another. In the end, shouldn’t architecture put itself on the equilibrium between man and nature? But in today’s reality, Eurocentrism dominates architecture paradigm of most intellectuals all over the world. And then, so dead the architecture body of knowledge...

Indonesian version avaliable; please click "Baca Lanjut" tombol below. Thankyou.

Di Venice Biennale 2010, Rem Koolhaas, praktisi yang juga "Professor in Practice of Architecture and Urban Design" di the Graduate School of Design at Harvard University, USA, mengkategorisasi karyanya bersama OMA. Catatan mereka: “OMA and AMO has been obsessed, from the beginning, with the past. Our initial idea for this exhibition was to focus on 26 projects that have not been presented before as a body of work concerned with time and history. In this room, we show the documentary debris of these efforts. But 2010 is the perfect intersection of two tendencies that will have so-far untheorised implications for architecture: the ambition of the global taskforce of ‘preservation’ to rescue larger and larger territories of the planet, and the – corresponding? – global rage to eliminate the evidence of the postwar period of architecture as a social project. In the second room, we show the wrenching simultaneity of preservation and destruction that is destroying any sense of a linear evolution of time.” Apakah tradisi masa lalu dan nilai-nilai sejarahnya harus membelenggu dinamika masyarakat kini? Apakah arsitektur tak lagi diharapkan sebagai projek sosial? Memang sejarah bukanlah linear atau seperti lapis-lapis geologi. Lebih mendekati jika digambarkan sebagai gugusan bintang atau nebula-nebula: yang berjarak ribuan tahun cahaya dapat dilihat secara bersamaan dengan bulan bumi yang berjarak sangat dekat dari kita. Tradisi masa lalu pun dapat hidup damai berdampingan dengan gaya hidup kini. Yang sulit adalah menyiasati atau mengatur strategi kebudayaannya.

Yang jelas, jika mengamati kesinambung-lanjutan dalam arsitektur dan lingkungan binaan sebagai kesatuan kenyataan ketenagaan, waktu, dan ruang , ada beberapa catatan yang sepantasnya ditarik, sebagai berikut:

Arsitektur bukan bangunan tunggal, atau monumen mati; arsitektur adalah bagian dari lingkungan binaan, dan juga bagian dari budaya yang hidup. Dengan demikian, arsitektur secara sosietal dan ekologis dinamis, dan secara spasio-temporal selalu terbuka (untuk tumbuh-berkembang lanjut). Sayangnya, masih terlalu banyak studio pendidikan arsitektur di Indonesia dan tampaknya, juga hampir merata di belahan bumi lain, yang secara implisit mendidikkan sikap kepada para mahasiswa bahwa arsitektur adalah “sebuah karya yang selesai tuntas”. Pada kenyataan hidup rakyat di hampir seluruh dunia, bangunan tak pernah “mati”: selalu menyesuaikan diri dengan dinamika hidup. Hanya sangat kecil bangunan yang menempati posisi sebagai buku pelajaran nyata. Artinya, keasliannya terjaga ketat. Apakah seluruh mahasiswa dididik untuk melayani sebagian sangat kecil kebutuhan itu? Kembali pada catatan Koolhaas/OMA, tak pantaskah posisi arsitektur sebagai social project bagi mahasiswa (atau calon arsitek?). Alam lingkungan tempat eksistensi arsitektur pun selalau berubah. Sangat majemuk pula. Setiap lokal mempunyai kekhasannya. Tak terlalu mudah menerapkan begitu saja pengalaman suatu lokal pada lokal lain. Akhirnya bukankah arsitektur mesti mengambil posisi pada titik perimbangan –berpihak tak hanya pada manusia, tetapi juga menjaga kelestarian alam-- sebagaimana yg saya tulis di atas? Pada kenyataan sekarang, Eurocentrism menguasai pola pikir berarsitektur hampir seluruh intelektual di dunia. Maka, matilah keilmuan arsitektur…