MyarchN

I would propose that virtually every aspect of Architecture meets the literal definition of 'traditional' because it's best defined in view of its behavior and its influence...in my view virtually unchanged as a traditional translator of social attitudes and values.

Regardless of the shapes, its physical forms continue to reflect its established precedents and behavioral patterns, which in turn are still most often governed by forces beyond its control. Existing still at the whim of client and the mercy of money, Architecture seldom leads...He who pays the piper still calls the tune...and so constrained, it finds solace in studies of its heroes and history, scratching the itch of innovative vision in after hour's doodles; dreams tucked neatly in the bottom drawer...
The changing shapes of forms do not necessarily reflect the changing ideology of the practitioner...'modern' simply describes a different shape and element of form, and while it reflects some positive evolution of craft, for the most part, it continues a traditional posture and attitude...one born of an elite educated class whose dogma permeates its business model, wherein financial risk is borne by client and thereby most its true purpose to enable an empowered society, is lost...Artist chained to economic desires and necessities, its buildarts catering to monuments of Ego, shrines of religion, symbols of power, demonstrations of dynasty...more anthropological ornaments and artifacts that best illustrate the constants...like the stoic geological formations of the natural earth our change is ever present, but at a rates imperceptible to the naked eye of real social experience. The dramatic elements and shape of the forms we create, belie this truth...make us believe that such enlightened creations can only be delivered by an enlightened species in control of their own destiny. Architecture as a dominant 'shaper' of form is a partner to this deceptive portrayal...not by willful damage, (though it is perhaps a sin of omission) but in its traditional role as a craft dictated to by monetary systems it becomes a mirror of societal values... what else can it be?
No matter what we believe...it becomes increasingly obvious that we have to move a lot faster than our geological formations. Currently, our vast ice is moving more quickly than we are...Architecture is one crucial element we desperately need to break out of its traditional reactive role as service provider and become instead a proactive visionary leader of environmental and societal change.
Traditional Architecture can then be relegated to a definition everyone can understand as...'that old fashioned practice that got us here, but doesn't work anymore'

Comment

You need to be a member of MyarchN to add comments!

Join MyarchN

Nold Egenter Comment by Nold Egenter on July 19, 2009 at 9:55am
Traditional architecture..A redundant term?

I agree with you to some extent that "architecture" (as a high term reflecting the history of civiliisation) was largely used to express power of whatever colour. But the anthropological approach provides a reasonable explanation for this: 1) semantic architecture played a globally important role in Neolithic cultures in the framework of a territorial system which created sedentary life and local food production with agriculture. These important new cultural levels were the basic platform of later civilisations. But, semantic architecture created also direct elements of the civilisational power structure: 2) by archiving the fibrous symbol of settlement foundation through cyclic ritual renewal, it created a prototype of social hierachy: the settlement founder's line. 3) In addition it autonomously produced an elementary aesthetics (PRO-portion) which was later monumentalised by powerful rulers of new cities or/and states. 4) And finally this territorial system was so efficient that the demarcations became highly evaluated in an ontological sense (deified). Later the polarity of the symbols was vertically extended into the "harmony of heaven and earth", a process described in Ancient Egypt in relation to the pharaoh Amenophys/Amenhotep IVth or Akhenaton, the beginning of Egyptian monotheism.

I agree also that "tradition" can - to some extent - be taken as a common factor of this evolutionary process of manifesting political/religious/financial power, but, in this framework, to neglect the forms would be impardonable, because the forms contain the clues for our understanding of the motives and (often fictive) means of power.

Finally: in the anthropological framework traditional (in the sense of pre-/para-historical)
is clearly not a "redundant" but a definitely forward-looking term!

I enclose the URLs of two papers which might help to clarify what is meant.
http://home.worldcom.ch/negenter/015cDronah_EG_article2.pdf
http://home.worldcom.ch/negenter/E/230a_AlpsAdria11_IDxa.html
To share, enjoy and discuss architecture and related arts. By using this site you agree to our Code of Conduct.

© 2010   Created by Rafael Marxuach.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service