|
A professional crisis
23/03/2008 The Star Architecture
Inside Out By Mohamad Tajudin Mohamad Rasdi
WHEN I studied architecture, I was enthralled by the works of Frank Lloyd
Wright and Louis Henry Sullivan who had wanted to develop a better
architectural language of democracy for America.
I read about William Morris and john Ruskin struggling to educate the
British about honouring their own art and craft heritage and creating a more
humane environment instead of the soulless cookie-cutter environs produced
by industrialised cities.
I read how Middle Eastern architect Hassan Fathi (who I mentioned in this
column on Feb 17) shed his modernistic training, humbled himself to learn
from the traditional craftsmen, and produced revolutionary housing for the
poor literally out of the bare earth.
These people to me were heroes of architecture that thought seriously about
creative and innovative solutions to help with what I call “nation
building”.
But what kind of architects do we have in Malaysia?
The kind that builds campuses in which students struggle to get to classes a
kilometres apart. Yes, the client can ask for a “Malay village” concept or
an “Islamic architecture of the Middle East” concept, but the architect must
be the diplomat who serves the users best while adapting the client’s needs.
The architect should be like the wakil rakyat (people’s representative) who
takes the rakyat’s issues to Parliament. But no, this is not done in
Malaysia.
The architect panders only to the one who signs the cheque – just like the
wakil rakyat who makes an about turn after the election and becomes the
wakil parti or wakil kerajaan.
Again, what kind of architect would build an extravagant and wasteful
mosque, then turn around and tell me that he is just professionally
fulfilling the client’s request.
At school, when students work on their final year project, they are told to
question the brief and provide alternate solutions that would preserve not
only the client’s needs but also safeguard the image of Islam.
In Malaysia today, who will defend Islam as a religion of moderation, one
whose Prophet despised any wastage, even in the building of mosques?
One reason architects here are not willing to stand up to clients is that
they get to go to Turkey or Egypt to look at the mosque precedence that
clients talk about. Another is the big fat commission of 6% or 7% of
construction cost. With a system like that, which architect is going to tell
the client not to spend so much on a project for fear it would give Islam a
bad image?
But one local architect did do a noble and professional thing.
Singapore-based architect Tay Kheng Soon was commissioned by a Californian
Buddhist community to design a temple. Tay read up on and studied Buddhism –
and came up with a modernist building. The client rejected his design, and
asked him to use Chinese architectural language. But Tay refused, saying
that if he were to do so, then people in that city would associate Buddhism
with Chinese culture and this would jeopardise Buddhism’s universalistic
appeal. Now that is an architect!
Or consider Wright, who threw away the medieval model of the church and
famously designed the Unity Temple in America using rough, poured-in-place
concrete because, he said, the church is not the house of God for God does
not need one; it is a house of man built for the remembrance of God through
meetings and congregation.
Many of the architects I have quoted write to the media and produce books to
propagate their ideas and engage in active criticism of what they consider
poor quality architecture.
In Malaysia? There is hardly a squeak from the architectural fraternity.
The reason? Fear of reprisals. Fear of not getting any more projects. Fear
of the municipality prolonging process of building approval. One architect
said to me, “I will write when I have made my first million”. He is into his
second million, but still not writing.
If architects do not find their own voice, I think there won’t be a
profession left in a decade from now.
Yes, of course, there is the construction boom in Dubai to sustain the
profession since the 9/11 terror incident is keeping the great Western firms
out of the Middle East, but what can we do for our own country, for our own
people?
Is an architect’s only concern the making of money, and then some more?
I learnt at school that the right design can produce environs that are in
harmony with our culture, modern lifestyles, and democratic values.
But if architects keep pandering blindly to clients, if they keep silent
without voicing concern for public architecture, the profession will become
mere fashion design, and no longer will it be the great builder of
civilisations it once was.
In Malaysia currently, it seems that a “professional” architect is one who
simply delivers a project on time and within budget exactly as the clients
require. If this is our idea of professionalism, then I don’t see how it
differs from the “oldest profession” known to man.
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia lecturer Prof Dr Mohamad Tajuddin
passionately believes that architectural design that respects cultural
values, religious sensitivities and the ideals of democracy is vital to
nation-building and harmony. |
