ON HISTORY AND CULTURE…

-Essay by: Bibek Shrestha.

Architectural history is often seen as a cavalcade of styles amid varying concepts of architectural beauty. This view regards the history of our discipline as a completed past that has no vital presence in the practices of the present. As a consequence, contemporary architecture is often presented and treated as an autonomous, self – referential, aesthetic & intellectual realm. And the qualities of its products are judged by the degree of their contempraneity, novelty and apparent uniqueness. Yet any meaningful creative work must be rooted and judged in a continuum of the culture and in the specific discipline or craft. In fundamental sense, then, the relevance of the artistic work is judged by the past as much as future.

Architecture essentially is an existential art that is to say; Architecture articulates our experiences and provides essential frames and horizons for the perception, understanding and evaluation of our own life situations. The very innovative architectural meanings cannot be invented; they are fundamental articulations of the human condition, ones that can only be re-identified and continually expressed anew in effectively surprising ways. Consequently, the true perspective of the architecture is always beyond architecture as an artifact or an anesthetized object- the perspective is one fundamentally reliant on a deeper history and culture. In our globalised world, the architectural practices being instant digital media and incessant deformation, the sheer possibility of “authenticity” and “cultural specificity” on architecture can be questioned. But I however think these notions are a predefined or conservative ways.

Culture is the very historicity of life- a lived reality; not an abstraction or a given narrative and it cannot be fabricated or invented. The experience of authenticity is not a notion of cultural or architectural anthropology; it arises from a full presence of lived and true life.

In today’s globalised culture, the deep problem, which I am facing or let’s say even I can’t deny , is its very experiential and emotional shallowness- its lack of aura of the real, as the current political and economic scenario forces us to support the globalization of lifestyles, customs and values. But the ethical duty of architecture remains: To resist this erosion of cultural, perpetual, historical and human quality.

Architecture continues to possess the capacity to root us in our domicile/adobe to enrich and dignify our daily life, to still further express values of life that gives us genuine satisfaction and joy.

Contemporary architects distribute their signature images around the world the very task and understanding of the architecture is distorted. Instead of being a means of structuring and articulating the living human world the art of architecture presents itself as an instrument of mental manipulation. So, In responding for the given functional, economic and cultural realities and demands, architecture has another responsibility:  To defend the historicity, authenticity and continuity of culture i.e. a critical practice of architecture must be based on internal and autonomous ideals and objectives of the discipline itself, as Responsible design is always based on the dialectics of a reality sense and idealized images of culture. As Alvar Aalto said in 1957 lecture: “Architecture … has an ulterior motive …, the idea of creating paradise … Every building … is intended to show that we wish to build a paradise on Earth for man” .On today’s egotistical  and conceited architectural theatre, this higher meaning of the architecture is lost.

The creative works outcomes are always supra- individual accumulations of experience and wisdom. Like any good poet listens to the “the wisdom of the novel”, in my view, Architects should similarly listen to “the wisdom of architecture”, the accumulated understanding the essence of architectural culture, encoded in the ancient and contemporary traditions of buildings. That’s when Architecture is truly a collective art form, although not only in the sense that it creates lived metaphors that concretizes the cultural and mental structures of the society. Architecture is an art essentially based on collaboration- the obvious co-operation with numerous experts, builders and craftsmen, to be sure – but moreover, collaboration with history and the wisdom that it possess.( I am emphasizing on significance of historical grounding  of creative work but not  promoting  architectural conservatism or implying architects to be an architectural historians. But what I am trying to say is, we need to grasp the continuity of the traditions, as well as the ruptures in the process of tradition.)

Most important, the history of our discipline and practice teaches us an art of respect and humility. The Russian American, poet Joseph Brodsky, once wrote, “Poetry is a tremendous school of insecurity and uncertainty. Poetry-writing it; as well as; reading it – will teach you humility and rather quickly at that, especially if you are both writing and reading it.” Brodsky‘s statement applies equally to architecture – particularly if you are both making it and theorizing about it! To work within our shared architectural heritage is to enter into a special realm. of architectural responsibility and humility. The primary significance of this historical sensibility is to assign you your position in the continued dialogue of culture.