ABSTRACT
With this remark made with a childlike ignorance, I do not think that this student had any idea of what can of cultural worms he was opening up – racism, imperialism and political incorrectness. Not just students, I find that many architects’ work or writing have a limited sense of culture and is mostly Western based.2 To illustrate, here is one example. I was talking to colleagues and invited external critics at the end of the celebration (open) day for the course I teach. One of them asked me, ‘Have you ever been to a crit? You know, when students put up their work and external critics comment on them.’ Rendered speechless, I searched my mind for a reason for his question and how best to respond – had he wanted a ‘crit style’ presentation that afternoon? Did he think I was a student (a common experience for me)? Was he thrown by the Indian sari I was wearing at a London University? A colleague came to my rescue: ‘Sumita is the course leader.’ The questioner persisted: ‘If you had studied architecture, then you would have known what a crit is.’ My helpful colleague who was by then equally puzzled, pitched in: ‘But Sumita is a practising architect.’ ‘Ahh,’ said the external critic, ‘I thought you were a sociologist, the way you were talking.’ Do architects need to think about social and cultural issues? According to Samuel Mockbee of the Rural Studio, ‘Architecture, more than any art form, is a social art and must rest on the social and cultural base of its time and place.’ He even insists, ‘As a social art, architecture must be made where it is and out of what exists there.’3 However, cultural and socio-economic issues are not taught specifically in architecture schools in the UK,4 and students often finish without having any clue as to how to talk to any kind of client, let alone a client in a vulnerable situation. The cultural artefacts and decorations, symbols, heroes and rituals are the intangible aspects of a culture and remain with the community should bigger manifestations such as buildings be destroyed in a disaster. These
then can be carried and transferred to another place, as commonly happens with migrating people. Symbols, heroes and rituals are what migrants and immigrants bring with them when they come to live or work in the city. Culture is not a static thing. ‘That which may be quite right and natural in one cultural environment can easily be wrong in another; what is fitting and proper in one generation becomes ridiculous in the next when people have acquired new tastes and habits,’ says Steen Eiler Rasmussen.5 Culture is always present, always changing – a living thing, the part of people and the artefacts they make and use – including the architecture and the client. In the present academic syllabus in Britain, there is lack of study of architectural traditions and cultures, other than European ones. Students taught using Euro-centric syllabus useing iconic Western buildings as examples, will have difficulty understanding the pluralistic approach needed for working in a ‘non-European’ context (although many students are now travelling further and thus this knowledge gap is being closed through their own efforts). Students and architects are working abroad or alongside colleagues from diverse backgrounds.6 Although the intake of non-white and foreign students has increased within the UK, the numbers in the profession have not increased proportionally. The RIBA study ‘Why Women leave Architecture’ (2003) and the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE) research into ‘Architecture and Race: the Experience of Minority Ethnic Students in Architecture’ (2004) (I was in the steering committees of both), included the following conclusions: ‘a lack of diversity in teaching and learning methods; in learning resources; and in role models, contributes to problems of retention and erosion amongst women and [Black and Minority Ethnic] architecture students in UK universities; and traditional studio teaching and learning cultures, and methods of design criticism, are failing to address the learning needs of the diverse range of students who now study architecture in UK universities.’ The global impact of the image of architecture, which is now largely uniform and Western, is difficult to imagine from a school of architecture but very visible when one travels abroad. Like biodiversity, diversity of architectural styles is being lost. Architects trained in modernist architecture may see decorations and symbols in vernacular traditions as something to ignore while admiring the clean lines of its simple form or functional design. Paul Oliver writes: ‘For many architects, the issue of decoration on vernacular architecture remains a source of discomfort, if not criminality.’7 Non-Western architecture, symbols and designs are treated like a strange exotic thing – embraced in fashion and music but not in buildings. Cultural differences manifest themselves in different ways and levels of depth. Symbols can be words, gestures, pictures or objects that carry a particular meaning, which is recognized by those who share a particular culture. New symbols develop while old ones disappear. Others may copy symbols of one particular group or use similar forms with different meanings. This is why symbols can represent the different things despite having similar forms, like the ‘Golden
arches’ and the Islamic arch. But symbols can be universal too – recognizable by all as part of popular and current culture (Figure 7.1). According to Thomas Friedman,8 the World Wide Web is the ‘symbol’ of globalization, even though it is a ‘non-physical’ presence. The core of a culture is informed by values. Values, often derived from religious or spiritual beliefs are the way certain aspects are perceived, such as good-evil, right-wrong, natural-unnatural. Values are often a ‘given’, may change in time and sometimes people from outside the community cannot directly perceive them. Sometimes, values can be inferred from observing the way people act in different circumstances. For although the issue can be the same, different societies (at different times) have different ways of dealing with core values. This affects the way spaces are used. While designers may have designated spaces for formal buildings such as schools, housing and offices, in the informal and formal areas we find space set aside for shrines, temples, memorials – these are part of the culture of that place and yet are often not given any thought or space. However, this is the value of that particular part of the culture as designated by the space in a particular spot – the ‘space-value’. The development activist needs to understand the ‘space-values’ of a particular society and ‘design’ or allow for such spaces, using participation and sensitivity. The value system espoused by Tsunesaburo Makiguchi of beauty, goodness and benefit can embrace values from different cultures
Photo: Author.
