{"id":135781,"date":"2019-11-29T14:50:52","date_gmt":"2019-11-29T14:50:52","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/news.iium.edu.my\/?p=135781"},"modified":"2019-11-29T15:59:12","modified_gmt":"2019-11-29T15:59:12","slug":"restoring-confidence-in-islamic-traditional-architecture","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/news.iium.edu.my\/?p=135781","title":{"rendered":"Restoring Confidence in Islamic Traditional Architecture"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

By Spahic Omer <\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Modernisation of the architecture of Muslim societies inevitably comes at a price. Modernising architecture is not only about importing and applying some well-established architectural styles from the West. It is also about subscribing to and following – knowingly or otherwise – certain values and standards that are either in outright conflict or just irreconcilable with the values and standards Muslims already have. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

To make things worse, everything Muslims do within each and every domain of their cultural and civilisational presence is inspired and guided by the worldview and value system of Islam, directly or indirectly, and sometimes more and at other times less. That means that pursuing modernity \u201c which is as much a philosophy and creed, as a mere historical period and an ensemble of modern-day technological innovation, governance and socioeconomics \u201c is set to place the procedure, sooner or later, on a collision course with some of the most fundamental principles of Islam.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The biggest stumbling blocks to living peacefully with modernity – especially insofar as Muslims are concerned – are modernitys doctrinal mantra that the predecessors in every regard were antiquated, pass\u00c3\u00a9 and outstripped; its association with individualism and subjectivity; its worship-like attitude towards science and technology; its adoption of rationalism and empiricism as the ultimate sources of knowledge and virtue; its rejection of religion and any form of spirituality, and also ethics that could be derived from the former; its rejection of tradition and native culture; and its espousal of rapid, often frenzied, urbanisation and material consumerism.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Modernisation as a poisoned chalice<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Even though modernity has many good\npoints and has brought considerable material goodness to mankind, it at the\nsame time contributed significantly to mankinds most distressing misfortunes.\nIt caused the destruction of natural environment; it increased pollution; it\nled to high population density and inadequate infrastructures in most cities;\nit divested man of any transcendental meaning, value and purpose; it augmented\ninequality whereby the rich get richer and the poor get poorer; it bred\ninjustice, insecurity and ontological uncertainty; it destroyed the family institution; and it broke up the social ties that had held people together in\ntraditional societies, making them no longer feel as connected to one another.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Thus, whenever and wherever Muslims embraced modernity, they faced grave problems as regards their heritage, tradition, culture, beliefs and values. The matter was proportionate. The more modernised a country was, the more alienated and even disconnected from its history, culture and religion it became. To some, modernisation meant separation from the people, identity and self. It was kind of a cultural suicide. Modernity in its totality and as conceived by the West was not only discordant with Islam \u201c in its capacity as philosophy, worldview, value system, and complete way of life \u201c but also it modelled as its rival. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

An example are several Muslim countries, such as Egypt, Turkey, Tunisia, Algeria, Indonesia and many others, who in the 19th<\/sup> and the first half of the 20th<\/sup> century embarked on a series of sweeping and all-encompassing modernisation programmes. The programmes were completely after the Western model. In the end, modernisation turned out to be the total secularisation, westernisation and desacralisation of systems, history, culture, life, thought and spirit. However, since all Muslim societies were extremely rich in all of those departments \u201c dominating for centuries the worlds cultural and civilisational scene – modernisation in the Muslim world was more concerned about, and busier with, destroying than building. It was more about confusing than enlightening, and more about problem-making than problem-solving. For instance, certain modernisation drives were accompanied by intensive and well-thought-out campaigns against veil (face covering for Muslim women), hijab<\/em> (head covering for Muslim women), Muslim traditional dresses, Islamic education, Islamic institutions, Islamic shariah law, Islamic personal, family and social values, Islamic ethics, the Arabic language and the Arabic alphabet.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In a nutshell, modernisation for Muslims turned out to be a radical form of relativisation, whereby all true goodness and virtues were rendered relative, and as such were bartered for spiritual, intellectual and functional discord, tension, rupture, incoherence and fragmentation. Modernisation turned out to be not progressive, but regressive. It favoured short-term gains at the expense of long-term losses. The best evidence for this assertion is todays scientific, technological, cultural, intellectual, political and socioeconomic standing of those Muslim countries as had chosen more than a century ago to go modern (and westernised). Most of them are not to be found anywhere on the cultural and civilisational map of the world.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Some people, and even institutions, were largely aware of the hidden modernisation threat, proceeding with caution. However, modernisation had been constructed in such a way that one cannot simply break it down into fractional and autonomous aspects – in particular along its philosophy-actuality divide – taking then what is needed or wanted, and putting the rest away. Modernisation is to be dealt with in its entirety, regardless of how much, at the end of the day, is assimilated thereof, and how much is dismissed. Modernisation is tantamount to fire; if one plays with it, one gets burned. Remaining utterly unscathed is an improbable prospect. Damage limitation, or control, is the only pragmatic solution left.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Housing\nas an example <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Thus,\nfor example, when the Muslim cities embraced modern housing at the expense of their\ntraditional paradigms, a level of damage was unavoidable. The damage could be\nobserved in terms of the negligence and abandonment of the cities traditional\nhouses and many other aspects of the indigenous cultures and heritages,\ntogether with the development of all the symptoms that are normally associated\nwith the hasty and poorly planned as well as executed urbanization and\ndevelopment programs, such as pollution, overcrowding, traffic congestion,\nhousing shortages, planning and building mediocrity, poor\nurban living conditions and low infrastructure services (especially in the\ntraditional sections of the cities). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Equally worrisome were the changes\nin family and social life, which were subtly fashioned by the modernization onslaught. The\nchanges were expedited by the ways new houses had been designed and built, in\nthat modern housing systems stood as the physical loci of the modern\nindividual, family and social values. They also epitomized and encouraged the\nmodernist worldview and aesthetics. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Hence,\nif one of the main principles of modern architecture and industrial design in\ngeneral was \u0153form follows function\u009d – that is, the\nshape of a building, or an object, should principally relate to its intended\nfunction or purpose \u201c then in the case of the modern housing of Muslims, the\nprinciple was \u0153(multidimensional and home-grown) function follows (fixed and\nimported) form\u009d \u201c that is, the familiar function of a house is dictated by its\nunfamiliar shape. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

This, indeed, was a perversion of\nboth modernity and architecture. It was the last thing architecture is and\nshould be. It was the last thing any respectable housing style could\naccommodate and be associated with. It was a far cry from what a universal\narchitectural tenet implied, to the effect that the purpose of a building\nshould be the starting point for its design. It was unlike what another tenet\nindicated, to the effect that form and function are fundamentally one. They are\njoined in a spiritual union where one supports and derives its meaning and\nforte from the other. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

It is deemed that the principle\n\u0153form follows function\u009d has been misunderstood and misapplied by many. So\nimportant and in a mutually respectful relationship are form and function that\nit is rightly affirmed that \u0153great architecture has this capacity to adapt to\nchanging functional uses without losing one bit of its dignity or one bit of\nits original intention\u009d (www.guggenheim.org).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This is why, for example, the people completely neglected their built\nenvironment heritage, and abandoned their traditional houses, while harbouring\nvery little, or no remorse whatsoever. Indifference was overwhelming. They felt\nthat they stood on the verge of a great future, and they wanted to be part of\nit. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

As part of a modernity package, a number of poisoned chalices were passed. Some of them pertained to\nvalues, whether they are relative or absolute, and whether they fall under the\npurview of mankind. Others were concerned with the core aspects of the\nworldview, such as the meaning and purpose of the house, human happiness,\ncomfort and aesthetics. Some basic aspects of life as a whole were likewise\naffected, and challenged. There is more at stake if things do not improve. The\nnew viewpoints and tactics are in dire and instant need of rethinking and\nadjustment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Le Corbusier\non housing <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In this\nconnection, Le Corbusiers book titled Towards a New Architecture<\/em>, which\nadvocates for and explores the notion of modern architecture, served as the\nlatters manifesto. It was an important work of architectural theory, and an\nindispensable source for studying the creed of modern architecture as an\nintended global phenomenon.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In it, the\nauthor articulates numerous modernist attitudes and norms, speaking primarily\nabout housing. Some of them are as follows: \u0153A great (architectural) epoch has\nbegun. There exists a new spirit\u00a6Architecture is stifled by custom. The\n\u02dcstyles are a lie\u00a6The business of architecture is to establish emotional\nrelationships by means of raw materials (and overall form, rather than\nfunction)\u00a6Architecture has for its first duty, in this period of renewal, that\nof bringing about a revision of values, a revision of the constituent elements\nof the house.\u009d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Le Corbusier\nthen proceeds to speak about all dead concepts in regard to the house, which\nought to be eliminated from peoples hearts and minds, if they wanted to arrive\nat the idea of an exemplary house as a machine to live in. In the process of\ndoing so, he brands present housing \u0153unworthy\u009d, for they ruin peoples health\nand morale. \u0153Our houses disgust us\u009d, the author concludes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Then, as if\nto present a conceptual and operative blueprint for getting rid of traditional\nhouses and for adopting the modernist housing paradigm instead, Le Corbusier\nsays: \u0153Our external world has been enormously transformed in its outward\nappearance and in the use made of it, by reason of the machine. We have gained\na new perspective and a new social life, but we have not yet adapted the house\nthereto. The time has therefore come to put forward the problem of the house,\nof the street and of the town, and to deal with both the architect and the\nengineer.\u009d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Calling the\nhouse a tool which prior to and during the initial stages of modernization has\nbecome bad, ineffective and out-of-date, Le Corbusier also writes that \u0153it (the\nhouse as a tool expressive of progress, or lack thereof) must be thrown away\nand replaced. But men live in old houses and they have not yet thought of building\nhouses adapted to themselves.\u009d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Modernity,\nmodern architecture and the theory of evolution <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The\nproponents of modernity believed that modernity was the pinnacle of mankinds\nintellectual, scientific, technological and, of course, architectural\nevolution. Rejecting religion, the past and traditions was, naturally, inherent\nin it. Such also connoted the starting point for modern architecture. Thus,\nmodern architects felt that they could decisively affect peoples lives and\nbehaviour through changes in the physical surroundings. There was such a belief\nin progress and change that the past and its traditions seemed irrelevant and\nunneeded. There was also a belief that by eliminating those elements in\nbuildings that served no practical material purpose – such as ornament,\ncultural and religious symbols – architecture could function in harmony with\nthe laws of nature. Even the indigenous natural devices, or solutions, for\nboosting the environmental performance of buildings, was frowned upon.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Brent Brolin\nin his book The Failure of Modern Architecture<\/em> reasons that all of these\nideas were brought to architecture in part through an imperfect understanding\nof evolutionary theory. According to the popular, though erroneous,\ninterpretation of the theory of evolution, progress was inevitable and society\nwas forever moving towards something better. Evolutionary theory postulated\nthat species were continually adapting to their surroundings, and as they\nevolved towards a more perfect form, useless organs, or entire species,\nwithered away. It was the law of nature and beyond mans control; man could\nonly marvel and submit. Therefore, since the past was biologically obsolete, so\nit was culturally, socially and, of course, architecturally, as part of an\nabsolute evolution. Applying this oversimplification to architecture, the\nmodernist found scientific justification for ignoring, and every now and then\ndestroying, traditional architectural styles.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Exposing the\nflaws of modern architecture <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

It is quite\nclear that as part of the task of restoring confidence in tradition and\ntraditional architecture, unmasking the demerits and flaws of modern\narchitecture will be vital. It should be made evident to all that\nWestern-driven modernity and its preferences for the built environment are antagonistic\ntowards traditions, heritage, local cultures, values, and even truth as well as\nreligions. It favours its own version of beauty, which, however, is so\none-dimensional, shallow, feigned and subjective that, when it is juxtaposed\nwith the devastation it is inclined to cause to traditions, heritage and\nreligions, the purported beauty, more often than not, comes into view as\nassertive repulsiveness and distaste. Sometimes it yet deserves to be called\nout-and-out ugliness. What is going on is in full consonance with the chi of\ncontemporary global capitalism as modernitys engine of growth and expansion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Modern\narchitecture is not beautiful, in the spiritual sense of the word. It is only\nfunctional, mechanical, non-natural and often impressive appearance-wise. It\ndoes not stimulate, soothe and nourish the soul, for it does not believe in it.\nEven its interpretation of mind, consciousness and emotions, and how these\ninteract with architecture, are interpreted along the lines of what could be\nunderstood as philosophical materialism. They are no more than the by-products\nof certain material processes without which they cannot exist. They are\nepiphenomena (secondary phenomena that occur together with or in parallel to\nprimary phenomena). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Traditional\nbeauty and modernity are mismatched. The former is regarded by the latter as\nprejudiced, cluttered and a bourgeois value. The latters version of beauty, on\nthe contrary, is about truly profound \u0153ideas, politics and the sublime\u009d.However,\nmodernity gives pleasure only to the senses through its emphasis on perceptible\nsymmetry, harmony, balance, utility and \u0153honesty\u009d, thereby either manipulating\nor prejudicing the mind and spirit. It provides only for the body and its\nbiological needs, cravings and desires. Its architecture can be rightly called\n\u0153hedonistic architecture\u009d, as it only promotes and aids corporeal pleasure-seeking. Its twin is \u0153hedonistic\nsustainability\u009d, which is\n\u0153sustainability that improves the (physical) quality of life and human\nenjoyment.\u009d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Modern architecture developed its\nown universe, oblivious to myriads of other universes around it. Such could be\ndubbed at once arrogance,\nself-centredness and obstinacy. Satiated with a deep sense of exclusiveness and\nsuperiority, modern architecture looked down on any other style and school of\nthought. It tolerated neither competition nor peaceful coexistence. It was a\ndestructive force, so to speak. The past, old, traditional and metaphysical\nideas and looks were the bane of its revolutionary existence. As part of its\nprecarious character, modern architecture was proselytized globally. In terms\nof intensity and scope, the proselytization of modern architecture was just\nabout on a par with Christianisation. Little wonder that both of them existed\nand were popularized for and in the name of the absolute truth.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The fallacy in modern architecture\nwas the idea to create a universal style and language, discounting the social,\ncultural and religious differences. Discouraging different architectural\nstyles, the advocates of modern architecture tried to standardize the building\nindustry to set principles that would create a consistent modern architecture\nworldwide. They attempted the impossible and the abnormal: the\nuniversalization and globalization of the modern architectural style. Doing so\nwas as inappropriate and anomalous as calling for the unity of worlds\ncultures, climates and geographies. If the latter is absurd and unfeasible, so\nis the former in equal measure, in that the realm of authentic architecture\ntypifies and mirrors the realm of the preordained cultural, climatic and\ngeographical diversity on earth. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The theory of isolating the\nbuildings to serve an \u02dcintended function was at the price of \u02dcactual\nfunction, creating buildings that are plain, anonymous, repetitive, boring and\neven undemocratic. Their meaning and actual significance were superficial and\nhollow, reflecting the actual intellectual and spiritual nature of the modern\nman. Le Corbusier once described his work as \u0153pure prisms raised against the sky\u009d\n\u201c a beautiful image, but not related to the way people lived inside them. Nor\ndid those \u0153prisms\u009d care about the aggregate needs people and their lives\nneeded, or about forging the organic and undisturbed relationships between them and their natural and man-made\nsurroundings wherein the \u0153prisms\u009d had been planted.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The supposed advantage of modern\nfunctional forms was often more illusionary than real. Steel and reinforced\nconcrete for columns allowed for \u0153open planning\u009d and \u0153flowing spaces\u009d by making\nwalls unnecessary. But this had social implications as different societies had\ndifferent social needs. Although the buildings were no longer dense in mass but\ninstead, open spaces, enclosed by light, thin curtain walls and resting on\nslender piers, they were however, more expensive to maintain, and heat and cool\n(www.uddhavnaik.com). Privacy and human interactions were also affected. The\nfirst consideration for making the aspirations of modern architecture real, was\nto look for a new building material that would be weatherproof, soundproof,\nlightweight and insulating. It was believed that modern architecture would then\ncome into its own. But it turns out there really is no new material that is all\nthese things (Lee Wohlfert). It similarly turns out that diversity,\nflexibility, consolidation and unceasing evolution \u201c rather than revolution and\nrupture \u201c are the only key.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A true architecture is not imposed upon people. Nor is\nit prefabricated, assembled beforehand off-site and then dumped on the\nunwilling and innocent population. Rather, a good architecture is participatory\nand adapts in response to peoples needs. It is dictated by the life its people\nlive and bring to it, in lieu of the private thought and fancies of individuals\nwho every so often have nothing to do with the place and its people, culture,\nheritage and current needs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Undeniably, architecture is a testimony of peoples\naspirations, struggles and identity. Their architecture is them, and they, in\nturn, are their architecture. People are what and how they build, and how they\nmake the most of their built environment. Architecture is an undeniable proof\nof peoples existential triumph, or failure.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The relationship between tradition and modernity <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

It is in this light that tradition in architecture is\nto be viewed and appreciated. Tradition is not to be cherished, nor rejected,\nfor its own sake. By the same token, neither modernity \u201c as part and\nconsequence of the natural flow of time – is to be embraced, or spurned, just\nbecause it is, or its not, perceived as an end in itself. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Neither modernity nor tradition is good or bad by its\nvery nature. Rather, they are both permanent realities of life that complement\neach other. They are two sides of the same coin. Whether they are good or bad,\nuseful or otherwise, depends on how people conceive and use them. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Certainly, there can be no tradition without\nmodernity, the latter being understood as a regular chronological period and a\nway of life that exists in the present or a recent time, and that uses or is\nbeing based on recently developed ideas, methods, or styles. Nor can there be\nmodernity without tradition. Todays tradition was yesterdays modernity, and\ntodays modernity will be tomorrows tradition. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

It follows that tradition and modernity are\ninseparable. They draw and depend on each other. The strength of either one of\nthem is also the strength of the other, and vice versa. <\/em>A separation, or\na rift, between them means distortion of the natural order of things, following\nwhich both tradition and modernity are set to suffer proportionately with how\ndamaging the separation, or rift, is. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

A total split-up between modernity and tradition\nsignifies in the long run demise for both of them. As far as todays situation in\nthe Muslim world is concerned, after slightly more than a century of the\nexistence of modern architecture and its ceaseless conflicts with the past and\ntraditions, both traditional and modern architecture suffered greatly. Neither\nwon, nor lost. They both became on life support. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Modernity caused more damage than benefit to itself\nand its conceptual and operational contexts, a far cry from its initial firm belief that in creating a better (purely modern) architecture\na better world would ultimately follow. Some aspects of modern architecture\nstill survive today, but as a style, for the most part it has been absorbed and\neclipsed by the post-modern architecture style. By and large, the latter is the\noutgrowth of the former, bringing about its own problems and dilemmas.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Tradition, on the other hand, also survived, but it\nlost its momentum, scale and influence. It is somewhat recovering under the\ncare of many international and local conservation and restoration initiatives,\nplans and programs. Such schemes were conceived and put in place when modernity\nand its hostile sentiment towards traditions were at their peak. Traditional\narchitecture was battered in the process. It survived firstly by chance, and\nlater by design. Firstly it moved from mere survival to dedicated restoration\nand conservation. The next phase should be the gradual processes of\nrevitalization, relevantization, activation and use of traditional\narchitecture, consistent with the spirit, needs and achievements of the\ncontemporary era. Put another way, that phase would mean modernization or\ncontemporization of traditional architecture.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Keeping alive and active Islamic traditional\narchitecture signifies paying homage to earlier cultures, generations and\nmentalities. It means making sense of the present, and securing both the sense\nand fate of the future. Elements of traditional architecture can be redefined,\nreconfigured and even recycled, giving buildings a new dimension, a new\nfunction, a new beauty, and a new appeal. Adaptive reuse should be pursued come\nwhat may. The pros and cons of modernity and modern architecture, at the same\ntime, are to be carefully studied, accepting and integrating the advantages,\nand discarding the proven disadvantages.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The problem is that today, especially in the secular\nand materialistic West, people find it difficult to understand the meaning and\nimportance of tradition, values and religion. People look to the future and the\nself for the good life, partly because all religion and spiritual values have\nbeen deserted, and partly because people worship progress in the form of\nscience and technology, which they believe can solve all problems and provide\nall happiness. In other words, people deify themselves and their human\npotentials, making science and technology their religion, and perennial change\ntheir tradition. Machines at home, at work, and elsewhere, are \u0153holy relics\u009d.\nEvery building that characterises this ideology and the technological\nadvancements of mankind, has been turned into a temple of modernity. Empathizing\nand supporting traditions in any way is a sacrilegious act; following them is\napostasy. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Hence, Le Corbusier depicted the house institution as\n\u0153a machine for living in\u009d. To him, every component of the built environment was\na machine. \u0153An armchair is a machine for sitting in and so on.\u009d Mechanizing\nlife, however, connoted mechanizing man in so many ways. Even mans thought and\nemotions were to be looked at against this backdrop only. If the arrival of\nmodernity spelled the death of heritage, traditions and traditional\narchitecture, it also spelled the death of the traditional man. The signs of a\nmachine life were on the horizon. They were the signs of a new social order, of\na newly born civilization, and of a newly established ontological truth.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Why people resist tradition <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

People hesitate not to change for fear of falling\nbehind. They do not subscribe to traditions lest they should be labelled\nbackward and regressive. They find it difficult to conceive the value of\ncontinuity, and the past as well as traditions as integral elements in the\nequation. \u0153But as long as continuity does not imply rigidity, it is a powerful\nand positive force\u009d (Brent Brolin). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

With this, architectural creativity can be\nsignificantly enhanced. Tradition by no means should be regarded as an obstacle\nto the creativity of modern times, diminishing and suppressing it. On the\ncontrary, the bounds of creativity can be broadened, and new vistas unlocked,\nin the refined exploration of the craft of architecture, encompassing such problems\nas how skilfully the designer can evoke the spirit of a modern or traditional\nplace; how he can adapt the new built environment to the traditional, albeit\nstill extant and relevant, living patterns; and how he can bring closer\ntraditional architecture to the new ways of doing things, and aspects of modern\narchitecture to the riches of traditional values and norms. All these can be\nachieved through mass, design, plan, detail, texture, decoration, and the other\ntools of the designers visual craft.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u0153By using what exists as a stepping stone for what is\nto come, the architect can reinforce rather than undermine the character of\nneighbourhoods and cities every time a building is added. If each new building\nretains something of the old at the same time that it brings something new, the\ndesirable character of a specific place need not be lost. The extensive\n\u02dcpre-modern cityscape that still remains is not historical refuse, to be\ntolerated until it can be bulldozed and replaced by something modern. It is an\nasset that should be used as a bridge to the future\u009d (Brent Brolin).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, for most modern architects \u201c including\nMuslims – creativity became synonymous with \u0153new\u009d, \u0153different\u009d and\n\u0153nonconformist\u009d. Therefore, to design in order to fit in, to conform, to\namalgamate, to borrow, to reuse, to adjust, or to compromise, rather than to\nstand out and be conspicuous as new, innovative and unique, seemed a terrifying\nsacrifice of the designers ego (Brent Brolin). It was unacceptable as it\nviolated the modern architectural creed. Every architect craved to become\nsomebody, rather than anybody. His buildings likewise were aimed to become something\nspecial, rather than something conformist and conventional. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

But they were wrong in understanding and interpreting\nthe terms \u0153somebody versus<\/em> anybody\u009d and \u0153special versus<\/em>\nconventional\u009d. At any rate, certainly, it is better to be just anybody and conventional\nwith reference to affirming and preserving ones identity, calling for\ncontinuity and integration between old and new, creating bridges between the\npast, present and the future, respecting established and proven customs,\nculture and the contributions of the forefathers, creating a solid platform for\nthe future undertakings, and showing respect for the existing traditional\nbehavioural patterns \u201c rather than being somebody and special but with\nreference to jeopardising ones identity, traditions, heritage, history and\nculture in favour of championing some foreign and unrelated alternatives. It is\nbetter to be a decent and little-known member of a decent community \u201c an\nanonymous soldier of goodness and truth – than its distinguished dissenter and rebel\n\u201c a commander of dishonesty and fallacy. It is better to be a fitting part of a\nharmonious whole, than pretending to be a discordant whole in itself.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The role of\narchitectural education <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Last but not least, the role of the architectural\neducation and its institutions is pivotal. The right things ought to be taught\nto students, especially with regard to the subjects of history and theory of\narchitecture, and such as pertain to its social and environmental dimensions.\nIn studios, students are to be both challenged and guided to execute projects\nthat will promote a peaceful and constructive coexistence between tradition and\nmodernity. Nonetheless, all this should be part of a bigger picture – yet a new\narchitectural culture – in which academics with their research projects,\nwritings and consultancy, practitioners with their various services in connection with the design and construction of\nbuildings, and municipalities and other local and national authorities \u201c will\nplay their respective roles. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

They all need to be of a similar\nvision, mission and purpose, and to act in unison towards the realization of\nidentical sets of goals. Suffice it to say that this new architectural culture,\nin turn, ought to be part of a bigger national revolutionary culture, and the\nnew architectural education part of bigger national educational reforms.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This is so because there will be no\nchange in the modernity-tradition dialectics unless new generations of\narchitects \u201c other professionals and also ordinary people \u201c are taught and\ntrained to make changes. There will be no genuine interest in respecting,\nsafeguarding, reviving and integrating tradition so long as new generations of\narchitects \u201c and others \u201c are not taught and trained to do so. It is architects\nwho produce architecture. They are the cause, architecture is the effect. Thus,\ngood architects will always produce good architecture, and vice versa<\/em>.\nMoreover, it is architectural education that produces architects. The\nrelationship between them is causal as well, confirming that only good\narchitectural education will be able to produce good architects, and vice\nversa<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

When in terms of understanding and\nappreciating tradition, incompetent and misguided modern architects are faced\nwith the existential dilemmas of traditional architecture, their responses are\ngenerally the same. Having been educated in modern building styles and methods\nonly, they can think merely in modern terms. They fail to come to terms with\nthe profundity and wealth of traditional architecture. They also seriously\nunderestimate, or dismiss altogether, the noble and sophisticated talent of the\ntraditional architects and artisans in general. They never question the\nappropriateness of their education and training, even though the conflicts with\nlife realities abound. Nor do they examine the validity of their methods,\nbecause they assume that eventually all people will change or abandon their\ntraditions and adopt their modern architectural philosophy and approach.\nEverybody is anomalous, ignorant and wrong; it is only them who are normal,\nenlightened and right. Everybody dwells in an architectural conundrum and\ndarkness; it is only them who can salvage the situation. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

As a consequence, most modern architects\nnormally complain that people are architectural illiterates, unable and\nunqualified to penetrate through the layers of traditionally accrued\nintellectual impediments and appreciate true beauty and true architectural\nachievements. Local traditional architectural skills, technologies and styles\nare seen as outdated and invalid, bordering on primitivism. They are being\ndisparaged. Modern architects assessments are compounded when they embark on\nmodern architectural undertakings and find out first hand that for completing\nthe tasks they have to surmount numerous obstacles concerning expertise,\ntechnology, equipment, and the availability as well as quick supply\n(importation) of building materials. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

To most modern architects, the only\nthing that exists in the universe of built environment is modern architecture.\nIt is the measure of all things, and the ultimate source of all architectural\nvalue. Everything else is to be viewed and appraised only through the lens of\nmodernity and modern architecture. In their eyes, furthermore, \u0153the role of the\narchitect is not to give people what they want, but what they should want if\nthey were intelligent enough to have good taste\u00a6Architects should impose taste\nfrom above rather than deferring to democratic desires\u009d (Brianna\nRennix & Nathan J. Robinson<\/a>).<\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

It is truly surprising why modern\narchitects \u201c in particular in developing countries, including the entire Muslim\nworld – do not see that their words and actions unceasingly contribute to\nmaking their previously-rich-in-tradition cities nothing but burial grounds for\ntheirs and their peoples cultures, heritages and traditional identities, and\nalso exhibition arenas for all sorts of alien modern styles and sub-styles.\nEven some quasi-styles find their way for an experimentation in those\nonce-genuinely-beautiful cities. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the context of historic Jeddah\nand the plight of its traditional built environment, with housing leading the\nway, Abdulla Y. Bokhari writes: \u0153All in all, municipality is doing its best to\nrestore the historic centre of Jeddah, but that effort, however energetic, will\nnot be sufficient so long as the preservation or conservation effort does not\ninvolve the total city. The architecture schools also have to assume some of\nthe responsibility: instead of teaching students to design in the style of\nCorbusier or Frank Lloyd Wright or the Beaux-Arts, they ought to be teaching\nthem to preserve traditional areas and integrate them with the new structures\nthat they are about to design in a way that will preserve the dignity of Saudi\ntradition and the citys character and life.\u009d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The way forward<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The only way forward is a\nmodernization of tradition and a traditionalization of modernity. The two\nshould converge along this wide two-way course. Indeed, there is no fully\nfunctional tradition without a delicate modern feel, just as there is no\ncompletely progressive and constructive modernity without tradition as its\nfoundation and elan vital<\/a><\/em>. In the long run, neither can survive on its own, let alone\nrealize its full potential. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

It follows, therefore, that bringing\nmodernity and tradition closer to each other, and eventually somehow merging\nthem – both in form and function, and in theory and practice – ought to serve\nto architects and designers as a main source of inspiration and guidance. It\ncould also be an everlasting source of an architectural audacity and\ncreativity. It may yet lead in the end to the deletion of demarcation lines\nbetween traditional architecture and modern architecture. In essence, there\nshould be neither traditional, nor modern architecture. There should be only\nthe architecture, that is, the existing, functional and present-day\narchitecture of ours.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Integration between traditional and modern architecture should likewise be comprehensive and genuine. It should be as natural, spontaneous and smooth as possible. Artificial, shallow, patchy and dishonest works must be shunned at all costs. For example, just grafting some elements of one onto the other \u201c like placing rawashin<\/em> and mashrabiyyahs<\/em> as mere symbols on purely modern buildings, or awkwardly incorporating air-conditioning and modern building materials and systems into the makeup of purely traditional buildings \u201c is not the way things need to be done. This does not solve anything. It only complicates and perpetuates the problems.***<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

By Spahic Omer Modernisation of the architecture of Muslim societies inevitably comes at a price. Modernising architecture is not only about importing and applying some… <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":5,"featured_media":135784,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[22,9,8,21],"tags":[],"nelio_content":{"isAutoShareEnabled":true,"autoShareEndMode":"never","automationSources":{"useCustomSentences":false,"customSentences":[]},"followers":[134,124,12,5],"suggestedReferences":[],"efiUrl":"","efiAlt":"","highlights":[],"permalinkQueryArgs":[]},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/news.iium.edu.my\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/11\/prof.jpg","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/news.iium.edu.my\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/135781"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/news.iium.edu.my\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/news.iium.edu.my\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/news.iium.edu.my\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/5"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/news.iium.edu.my\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=135781"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/news.iium.edu.my\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/135781\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":135834,"href":"https:\/\/news.iium.edu.my\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/135781\/revisions\/135834"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/news.iium.edu.my\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/135784"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/news.iium.edu.my\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=135781"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/news.iium.edu.my\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=135781"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/news.iium.edu.my\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=135781"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}