All Good (or Bad) Things Come To An End.. Eventually

Well we've all come to the end of the semester, or at least almost there. I must say that this semester has been a rough ride, full of ups and (an absurd number of) downs. An eventful semester with simply not enough time for everything to go as planned. It wasn't an easy semester, i have to admit, despite myself only taking five subjects. We had a rather slow start then everything simply accelerated to hell (quite literally, in fact), however I manage to take the time to enjoy ever so slightly the theories class of this semester (I know my blog updates don't actually show the enjoyment but trust me, this IS by far the most relaxing class this semester). Amidst all the chaos in design classes, rejected ideas and the endless re-dos of not only design but coupled with construction as well where I could go on forever with the complaints but I have learnt quite a few things this semester, particularly in theories where some actually did catch my attention, or rather, offered something of a wake up call and got me re-thinking the way i think about architecture.

To begin with, we all learnt about the various thinking of other people with or without architectural background, about what they have to say regarding architecture as well as the way they see or appreciate it. Needless to say, everyone has their own opinion on things as architecture is a combination of arts and sciences in an abstract way where only the architect him/herself truly understands.This simply means the work is open to interpretation, and some of the interpretations seen throughout this subject has its own validity. To be perfectly honest, this subject didn't exactly get a running start. After being bombarded by blog assignments after blog assignments, I slowly got the idea of the subject. Hence, I was exposed to architectural interpretations from all sorts of people, famous or otherwise. In the beginning it was rather frustrating especially the earlier ones such as Heidegger's thinking on architecture. His form of thinking is obviously much more complicated than our own, looking at architecture related to man and divine beings. I have learnt that architecture is not something as simple as admiring a building's form or space, nor is it only about how the building relates to the user in terms of feeling and the sort. I feel that architecture has been underestimated for quite a while now, with myself as guilty of this as anyone else. Architecture touches on every aspect of life, having the largest field of profession, we are expected to know a little of everything - cultures, races, religion. This all seems like a tall order for a person but to become a successful architect, i feel that there are many more things i have to learn, despite having learnt so much already.

Now we've come to the best and the worst moments. There are hardly any moments i would call the 'best' ones, however i suppose that is quite normal considering architecture is quite a demanding course. As for the worst moments, the usual stay up all night doing (insert subject name here) assignments still apply, although now it has gotten a bit more challenging seeing as 8a.m. classes are thrown into the mix. Nevertheless i do enjoy the little challenges these have given me, since it not only builds character, but it also prepares us for what we are to face when we move on after graduation.

As for my philosophy, well, i haven't taken the time to come up with one yet, although i find myself sticking to the idea that architecture should be expressed in the purest form, where elements should not be hidden, but shown as a part of a whole. This is the idea of bringing forth a form of architecture where it is prone to interpretation, but does not cause the idea to stray, creating something simple to understand yet serves its purpose well, as well as fulfill the aesthetics department in the best way possible. Though this is something short of a philosophy, it serves as a seed that would probably grow into one some day, then perhaps i would be one step closer to understanding the vast field called architecture.

Field Trip : Aesthetics, Ruins & Space

The majestic Moorish/Greco-Roman building stands proudly atop a small hill in southern Perak, a dream left unfulfilled, a fragment of a vision of what could be. Now, only ruins remained, ruins of what could have been one of the first in Malaya, a grand mansion with a spacious rooftop courtyard as a social hub for the era's wealthy colonial planters and administrators.

Having its foundation stone laid in 1910, the owner of the mansion, William Kellie Smith envisioned a place where the people of a higher social status would meet and socialize. The original plans for the mansion was for a six-storey tower, a wine cellar, a rooftop courtyard and an elevator among other things. However, this dream was never realized as the owner fell ill and passed away before it could be completed. His wife then sold the mansion for she was overcame with grief and returned to Scotland.

The most common tale regarding the construction of Kellie's Castle was William Kellie Smith originally arrived in Malaya in the 1890s and worked under a rubber planter named Alma Baker. Alma Baker obtained a few contracts to make roads in southern Perak not long after, Smith then snapped up this opportunity to work alongside Baker and made a huge profit. With this, he purchased a 900-acre land in southern Perak. This was to be the site of Kellie's Castle as we know today. He named this estate Kinta Kellas, after his home farm in Scotland, Easter Kellas.

In 1910 he built a Moorish styled mansion for himself, his wife Agnes Smith and their first child, Helen Agnes. The manor sat on a little knoll just by the bend of Sungai Kinta, providing a clear, unobstructed view of the Kinta Valley. Its grounds were groomed into pockets of lush gardens, open spaces, lawns and a lake - added to complete the estate ambience. In Britain during the Victorian era, many young, rich, enterprising men took to buying old manor houses, castles and estates to accentuate their stature in the social circles and for a long period, such activities were well accepted.

However, after the birth of his second child, his son whom he named Anthony, in 1915, he decided to build a bigger mansion which was to be an extension to his original home. He employed a workforce from beyond the shores of Malaya, bringing in some seventy workers from south India and work began on the mansion which would take about 10 years to complete. All was well until the early 1920's when an epidemic broke out and took the lives of most of Kellie's workers. He was then asked by the workers to build a temple for the deity Mariamman to ask forgiveness and protection for the people living on the estate. Kellie agreed and everything was back in order again once the temple was built. Tragedy struck when Kellie returned to Europe and was on his way back to Malaya. He made a short detour to Lisbon, Portugal and was believed to have succumbed to a bout of pneumonia and passed away in December 1926. His wife, Agnes, then sold the estate and returned to Scotland due to the difficulty in running the rubber plantation by herself.

Another version of the story regarding the construction of the temple stated that the temple near Kellie's castle was due to Kellie's wife, Agnes' inability to conceive, for he had wanted a son as an heir to inherit his estate. At that time he already had a daughter named Helen. However, one of the Madras laborers told him that by praying to Amman,a Hindu Goddess, whom they believe will grant their wish. So Smith prayed to her and Agnes conceived and delivered a baby boy. As a token of appreciation, Kellie built a Hindu Temple for the Goddess. He also built a statue of himself alongside the Goddess. Until today the tunnel still connects the mansion and the temple, although the path has been sealed off. After this, because of his fascination with the Hindu religion and Indian culture, Kellie's plan was for this house to share similar architecture to those of Madras, with all its bricks and tiles imported from India. He even employed a big group of Indian labourers to build his dream house, to keep the mansion authentically Indian, resulting in the Moorish style we see today.

The mansion was later restored to its original state, or at least what it should have looked like, although the tower did not reach its intended six floors. Having only 4 storeys, the top of the tower provided a magnificent view of Perak and its lush green forests. The place was turned into a tourist attraction, and although it did not serve the purpose Kellie had intended it to, it made an interesting tourist spot, with even people from Malaysia itself visiting the mansion to admire its architectural beauty. The castle was even featured in the 1999 movie, Anna and the King, since it is the ideal location for a romantic story as the castle itself had a romantic story of its own. Besides this, it is also said that Kellie's soul still roams the castle, although it is probably just a story to bring in tourists who hopes to catch a glimpse of Kellie himself walking (or rather, floating?) along the corridors of his unrealized dreams.

An Architecture Of The Seven Senses

They say architecture is a form of art, far different from the ones you generally see in a gallery. Indeed, seeing as architecture presents its form of art as the gallery itself, it has far more potential as an art form than anything it could possibly house. Architecture aims to please not only our sense of sight, our vision, but it also aims to please the other four senses. But wait, architecture of the SEVEN senses? This seems like a lot to accomplish, seeing as we are only aware of five senses so far in our lives. 

However, architecture does make an impact on all of these senses, whether or not we are aware of this process. The building in which architecture presents itself, is not an end to itself. It frames, articulates, restructures, gives significance or hierarchy, relates, separates and unites. facilitates and prohibits. It does all these to create authentic architectural experiences. These consists of approaching a building rather than the facade itself, the act of entering a space and not simply entering the frame of the door, as well as looking out the frame of a window, not just the window itself.

To properly understand the concept behind the seven senses involved in architecture, we have to look at how architecture plays a part in these seven senses. The sight is the one architecture has the biggest impact upon. Before we enter or truly experience a building, it swiftly takes us by our sense of sight, we then allow ourselves to admire the architecture of a certain building, judging it from pillar to pillar, tile by tile. But the experience is not complete with only a single sense. As we approach the building, we experience things through our sense of smell. These scents mark the building, reminding us of the place whenever we chance across such scents, be it pleasant or less than so. Be there a garden with fragrant flowers or an unsightly pile of trash in the area, the scent will always be related to the building in which we first experienced such smell.

Monuments, Testimony & Memory

In history we try to commemorate the great people who have made our countries or the world what it is right now. We build sculptures and objects to remind the current and later generations of the contributions and sacrifices of the people who are long gone but not forgotten. Historians dedicate their studies to such people and museums are build to honor such people's contributions. Often the sculptures remind us of the great things in history, but the less pleasant things should not be far from memory as well. As the saying goes, 'those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it' and it holds a certain amount of truth. Therefore, heroes and villians are commemorated to ensure we learn from their good values and learn from their mistakes. Along with events that affected the lives of the people then and now.

We find different sorts of ways to commemorate the dead, the ones who have gone before us. The more commonly seen ones would be sculptures, sculpted in the image of the people intended, with their legacy etched in stone. We learn to be appreciative of history and its course, creating works of art that reflects the deeds of the people who made our country or world what it is now. Several ways such as sculptures as well as architecture can properly commemorate these people if done properly.

Daniel Libeskind's Jewish Museum is such an effort to commemorate an event and it does it beautifully. The museum greatly represents the part of history it wishes to present. The building was completed in 1999 and opened to public in 2001. The intention of the museum was to remind the people of the fatal years of the Holocaust, Libeskind himself being affected by it, having lost most of his family then. Libeskind called this project 'Between the Lines', saying it is about two lines of thinking, organization and relationship. One being a straight line broken into many fragments while the other is a tortuous line continuing indefinitely. Libeskind, a musician himself, took inspiration from music and considered the museum the final act of Arnold Schoenberg's unfinished opera, Moses und Aron . Walter Benjamin's One Way Street's 60 sections determined the number of sections that comprise the museum's zigzag section. Crossing the zigzag sections is a straight line creating a linear void along the entire museum. The void represents what Libeskind claims was a part of Jewish German history which could not be exhibited, 'humanity reduced to ashes', referring to the Holocaust. The seemingly random lines on the museum are taken from Libeskind's interest in the Holocaust itself. He read the Gedenkbuch, the memorial book which had names of people who were deported from Berlin and killed in concentration camps during the years of the Holocaust.

The museum itself appeared to be a massive sculpture when it was completed, not having been open to public yet. The lines outside give no feeling to the interior space as a building should. As a sculpture, it presents itself beautifully, opening up to interpretations and having people read between the lines as Libeskind intended. As a building it properly tells the story intended, having voids and bridges signifying the sacrifice of so many people during the world war, the murders of the German Jews. As a museum, it completes the tale of the even, filling in blanks in which people interpret from the building itself. It is a successful way of commemorating the dead as it tells their story without a single word, even before you step into the building itself.

However, the monuments and museums in Malaysia do little justice to the ones who have done so much for our country. Daniel Libeskind put in a lot of thought into his design, as well as the fact that he was affected directly, having lost loved ones in the Holocaust. Most monuments in Malaysia do not cause us to look twice, having end up as a landmark or a proposed meeting point. Often we forget that it was because of the sacrifices of the war heroes in the past that we are what we are today, otherwise we might have still been under the colonization of the British, or worse.

As we are not affected directly by such events, we know too little to properly commemorate the ones who have so lovingly sacrificed for the country. Having only writings and word of mouth to go by, we may not be able to properly commemorate the patriots. However, we can help these people remain in the memory of every Malaysian. Simple sculptures do little justice to ones who do so much, therefore a structure that could tell their tale is more effective, one that could cause people to think, not just look. A building or a structure that could properly tell the story of the people who have gone before us, their tales and legacies left behind, their fight towards the liberation of this country from the rule of other countries, not simple sculptures that we drive or walk by everyday without even noticing.

Remembering The Home

In the process of growing up, it holds true that the childhood home affects a person the most, in terms of growing up and the moulding of a person's personality. Some may say it's a process no child cares about, but subliminally it is the house that shapes the child subconsciously into the person he/she is today. It shapes our understanding of spatial characteristics and qualities, the house is a silent teacher. The creaking staircase, worn out floor tiles, walls that held for years without a single complaint and the doors that tire from being slammed repeatedly. The house teaches us patiently, over the years, without regard for whether or not we understood the lessons taught.

Truthfully the house one grows up in leaves a lasting impression on the person, whether or not the person decides to admit it. What your house was, is or should have been will forever be perhaps at the back of your head, playing an important part in an individual's perception of space. The place i grew up in, the place i call home, is but a simple brick house. Often i fail to understand how this simple double storey house plays a vital part in my understanding of place and architecture. Perhaps i've began to take the place i grew up in for granted. However i find that i have learnt much from this house.

Nevertheless, the way my childhood home affected me was not a direct one. Perhaps like Mies, the house that helped me understand was more of a house i didn't have. I have lived in my childhood house for the past 20 years and it still feels the same. It is a simple double-storey house with 3 bedrooms. From the exterior it looks like any other normal house should be, simple and inviting. Upon entering the house one would be standing in the living room, a small one but comfortable, enough to fit a sofa and a television for family movies and the sort. Next up is the dining area, there sits a dining table for breakfast, lunch, dinner and everything in between. To the left would be the staircase, creaky but sturdy as ever even after two decades of service. Straight ahead is the kitchen, bigger than necessary however. Inside the kitchen, there is a toilet and a storeroom. Backtracking to the staircase, walking upwards there would be another living room in the heart of the first floor, three other doors visible, leading into the three bedrooms.

I'm not complaining about my house, however. But in my opinion it could have been better, in living in this house i have learnt of several do's and don't's of design and spatial planning. This house would be said to have a rather indirect method of teaching me spatial characteristics. For one, the kitchen takes up about 1/3 of the length of the house, although it consists of a storeroom and a toilet, a kitchen need not take up so much space. The space mentioned could be used towards the betterment of the comfort in the house. Not to say that my house isn't at all comfortable.

Regarding this example, i find most of my designs, whether they be on paper or not, consists of a kitchen that takes up little to no space at all, a kitchen that may be integrated with the dining room. That or a smaller kitchen would be more favorable in my opinion. For me, the living room is the heart of the house, and should be the part of the house that takes up the most area. My house does not consist of a huge living area, but i would prefer if it had. These are the sort of examples of the things my childhood home has thought me, and it has visibly affected my design choices.

This much being said, our childhood home may not be the most perfect of houses. It is there to provide shelter from the elements, and to silently guide us in whatever ways it is able. The house i live in may not be flawless, but i have found myself in this house and it has greatly affected my thoughts and ideals in architecture and spatial comfort. And for all these, i feel that there is truly no place like home.

Heidegger's Thinking On Architecture

Heidegger presented his concept of being-in-the-world implying a man-made environment. He presented the concept that man lives in a fourfold environment consisting of the earth, the sky, the divinities which are the gods and mortals which are men who dwell in this earth. The passage in his essay "The origin of the work of art" strongly suggests that a building, in his case, a temple, a holy place, portrays absolutely nothing. It merely stands there in the 'rock-cleft valley'. The temple encloses the figure of a god, and by concealing, it allows the temple to stand out. The presence of the god is in itself 'the extension and delimitation of a precinct as a holy precinct'. Heidegger strongly believed that places of worship such as temples are built in specific places where the chosen place has a hidden meaning revealed by the temple itself. A building according to Heidegger is a work of art and as a work of art, the building "preserves truth". Hence the temple does not add to the landscape that is already there, but instead brings out the land and causes it to emerge as what it truly is. Simply put, Heidegger believed that a land in itself is unable to present itself as a work of art. However, if a building is built on that piece of land, it does not add to the landscape but causes the land to show its true form as a work of art.

In his later writings Heidegger offers interpretation of a fourfold of earth, sky, mortals and divinity. We may feel bewilderment as we're used to thinking of the world in terms of physical, social or cultural structures. Heidegger speaks of these fourfold to remind us that our world consists of concretized objects or things, rather than the abstraction of science. Heidegger describes the earth as the building bearer, the sky as the sun's path and seasons of the year as well as where clouds drift about, the divinities as the beckoning messengers of the gods and the mortals as human beings. He adds that each of these four is what it is because it mirrors the others. Heidegger constantly talks about this fourfold existance, talking about man's stay between earth and sky. He understood that "things" are manifestation of the fourfold, saying 'things visit mortals with a world'. This simply means that every 'thing' has a world of its own to bring to us, something for us to study and learn about. One of the meaningful lines Heidegger wrote about is how a bridge gathers the earth as landscape around the stream, where it does not simply connect, but it makes a place come into presence, where the banks appear only when the bridge crosses the stream. Simply put, we won't see the stream banks as they are until the bridge comes into play. There is truth in Heidegger's writing, where we will not be able to see a place for what it truly is until some a built form appears.

Heidegger also spoke about language as the original art. This was before he arrived at the concept of fourfold existence. However the concept was already there. Nature itself also gathers the fourfold, and asks for interpretations. This happens in poetry, language. Language plays an artistic role in the naming of things. By naming things, it brings beings to word and to appearance. Things are recognized for what they are when they are named. He states that the names "keep" them, and a world is opened up. Language keeps the world, but is also used to say a world. Language is defined as the "House of Being".

Put simply, Heidegger believed that every "thing" has its "thingness" or rather, a kind of soul to the said object, and that the same thing can be applied to the landscape and architecture. In this sense, we are more familiar with the term "genius loci" which is the "soul" of a place where Heidegger used the Greek temple as the example.

Critique on the article "The Concept Of Place"

The Concept of Place

The author presents us with a case saying that the concept of "place" has recently been given much attention by those who discuss problems of urban design and architecture. However, this concept of "place" is no longer meaningfully described in our lives today, having given up the human environment of stable places such as houses, cities and countries in exchange for a more mobile living. Technology plays a part in depriving us of physical contact with others as well, along with modern means of transportation allowing most of us to move about, making it even harder to truly communicate. Although this mobile living is accepted by some, many remain skeptical as to whether or not it will help or 'destroy' us. The study of Lynch implies that the lack of direct human contact may produce psychic disturbances and mental disorder. I strongly agree with the author's views especially when he added that 'when place is abolished, we simultaneously demolish architecture'. Architecture is a defined space, hence it obeys the site requirements and takes its context into consideration. If place is abolished, architecture loses its sense of site, and a mobile home would probably not feel like much of a home if it were to be somewhere else instead of say, 'home'. I answer the author's ending question with, we need to have an imageable and architecturally articulated place. Mobility is something people may want to work towards or even desire, but i feel that the architecture of a building is just as important as the architecture of the site. If we were to put our house anywhere else rather than where it is now, it would no longer be called a 'home'.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Existential Space

Piaget states that "an object, is a system of perceptual images endowed with a constant spatial form throughout its sequential displacements and constituting an item which can be isolated in the causal series unfolding in time.". This simply means that man is able to construct an image of a structured world, in which existential space (which is the notion of space) forms an integral part. Each of our concept of 'space' is abstract. It consists of universal relations such as 'outside', 'inside', 'under', 'over', 'before' and 'behind', along with more specific geometrical structures. Gestalt psychology describes abstract "principles of organization" rather than the structures of concrete existential space. Hence, an existential space need not be something visible or concrete, it has to be something a person is familiar with, or rather, a point of departure. When the center of our immediate space coincide with the center of existential space, we feel 'at home'. If anything else, we are 'away' in the sense of 'elsewhere' or 'lost'. Existential space is defined by particular actions in particular places. When an action takes place, the place where the action takes place becomes meaningful.

I must say that this article requires further review as I feel I'm not getting the full message. However, in relation to the previous article on concept of place, I feel that this is in relation with what was presented by the author in said article. The existential space consists of a place created by someone in familiarity, as in something familiar as the so called 'departure point', often his/her own home. Hence mobility becomes an issue where a person may be at the point of being 'elsewhere' or 'lost' in their very own homes.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Architectural Space

Architectural space would describe the concrete structure or space that man lives in. And if it does not permit the development of a satisfactory existential space, man himself has to modify the environment. We open and close windows and doors, move pieces of furniture, but we can only have minimal influence on the more general system of places which comprises our personal space. The task of the architect is then to 'concretize' a more or less common existential space. And as always, the genius loci of a place comes into play. The architectural space is simply to define the inside and outside of a place, in which a person truly dwells. The American architect Robert Venturi enhances the importance a wall gives by allowing it to curve. The concave surface gathers and creates space like "a parabolic mirror". Existential space is hierarchical and comprises of different zones, while architecture concretizes this. Architects like Le Corbusier and Mies van der Rohe understood this concept and divided space-defining elements from the load bearing elements.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Conclusion

I would agree that architectural space may comprise of mobile elements, but in totality it cannot be mobile. This is because the mobility would make the development of existential spaces impossible. As we familiarize ourselves with routines and things in repetition, a mobile world where these things are forgotten would only serve to impede human development. Piaget states that a mobile world would limit man where he could only be liberated with an image of a structured and relatively stable world, with it, his ability to understand and feel. In addition, a sort of spiritual emptiness would manifest, a feeling described by perhaps the lack of a place of belonging. The concept of place is defined through existential space, and following it, architectural space which would give a person a feeling of belonging, a structured and stable world. The contribution of each individual to the totality consists in the articulation of the place to which he belongs. Human identity indeed does depend on the possibility of concretizing existential space. Only then can we truly feel that it is a place we belong.