There were scholars and writers researching on the society of the Eurocentric and the non-Eurocentric. The non-Eurocentric being the Africa and the China. From the point of view of the Eurocentric scholars and writers, they concluded that the politics of the non-Eurocentric countries are being despotic and servile, unlike the western's freedom and individualism.
Already in fifth century B.C, Greek Historian Herodotus mentions "barbaric" Asian Hordes who, despite splendid architectural, lack European individuality. The fact that the Asian despite the splendid architecture is not true and the Temple of Heaven and The Forbidden City are great architecture of China. The Eurocentric scholars and writers are writing from the western perspective of view.
Herodotus mentioned the term "barbaric", is he referring to the Mongols warrior of the Khan who nearly reach Vienna or the European’s command and conquest of the outer lands. Frankly, they are placing themselves in a higher rank and hiding their mistakes.
The Europe scholars and writers writings about the despotism of the non-Eurocentric, especially China. The question is, the degree of the democracy in the politic aspect of the Europe is low as well. It was not as democracy as today's. In architectural aspect, both Europe and china show nothing in the architecture of democracy. The political building of the Europe and china is trying to show power as well, the divine strength within. Therefore, the Eurocentric is criticizing blindly in their articles or perhaps trying to hide their mistakes. Africa may have the architecture of democracy.
Showing and doing are different things, Eurocentric architecture show it. Saying other as if their are not despotism, the word may be different but the acting is "different", try to recall what happen to Galileo Galilee? Are the actions on him regarded as something good? Renaissance is a new birth for them, is the new birth necessary in the architecture, some architects reused the motives and decorative for the Romans times. It is an act of showing the power again as Rome used to be a powerful civilization. The Art Nouveau and other developed styles passed to other countries and used in these countries, adding their architectural value to the other countries through command and conquest, consider "barbaric"?. All the way along the timeline of the history, Eurocentric thinkers are trying to keep their history clean.
Other countries have their building trials after the world wars. In aspect of culture, they may be valuable but thinking deeper into, they are showing their strength to the world that hopefully everyone is following their paths and be in-line with them.
Today, the post-modern era, sustainability includes the aspect of cultural. For example, the Georgetown and the Melaka being awarded the UNESCO sites. It is valuable as time passed by and needed to be valued. (The shop houses by the Chinese included the Europe architectural details into the design during that time.) The Eurocentric architecture inspired by the nature since the Art Nouveau, categorized into organic architecture perhaps. The approach of their design and inspiration that contribute much to today’s architecture perhaps.
Eurocentric is being powerful in the bygone days; European architecture is being impressive as well nowadays. What can architecture do in 12 Dec 2012. Perhaps the spinning tower of Dubai and contribute to the future building, the spinning technology may be developed further that the buildings can rotate instead of spinning to suit the polar reversal at the particular day. It is possible only if the great wave doesn't hit the building site.
How does the buildings in our time can resist such a big impact from the nature. Or we will never resist it? As, there are no gradual changes in the human skull of different human species through out the history. That’s means extinction and rebirth of new human kind. Or perhaps rebirth of new architectural style? Which architecture brought by the survival to the new age? Does it matters or is it built in order to survival the new age? Can our architectural constructions and technology adapt to the climate after 2012 as we emphasize in responding to the local climate.
The repetition of the Great Flood since the Gilgamesh and the Moses tells us that there is survival using some kind of enclosure for protection. Can architecture provides such a big and really really safe structure for 6 million people in the world? Who is going to do it and which architects are going to subjected to the once in 2600 year project.
Zaha Hadid? Norman Foster? Renzo? Jean Nouvel? Tadao Ando? Richard Roger? Santiago Calatrava? Or perhaps all of them work for the projects. What if the pyramid technology was passed down from survival of the age before them? As for us, what should we pass down to the fifth age. The Eurocentric architecture which flourish the lands that marks perfectly in the architectural history?
Sustainability?
Green architecture?
Ecotecture?
If the mass destruction happens, the survived architects sure have to start off using the indigenous materials like stone and woods, unless we build a protection for the factories and the machineries. Everything is hard to predict and the new architecture arise after the 2012 may be a better one than any of today’s architecture. Or may it be worst? Everything started from zero….
Or the architecture realm will move to outer space after 2012? Haa…..no idea…
No comments:
Post a Comment