whenlightswork

An extremely disturbing book…

Disturbing as it had rekindled my passion on architectural theories, once again, and to think that I can visualize Rem Koohlaas and Peter Eisenman at each other’s neck, almost literally, discussing at length in AA London, discussing on the various points of how their design strategies have changed the way they conceptualized form… That brings us back to the question of, will it be form or content, or should we perceive content versus form. I think the book was aptly named, Super critical, bringing forth two of the greatest architects, who are fervor advocates of design theories and ideas, and how design theories can be re-structured to form spaces and programmes. Reading their ideas does sparked off many internal discourse on how recent architectural development has somewhat steered itself towards the being responsive to the environment and being sustainable, yet, do design theories simply stopped at the doors of the university? There are times when we looked at the works by Kenneth Frampton or Charles Jencks, two of the world’s most famous architectural critics and historians, and wondered how theories have been translated into built projects, and whether both eminent architectural critics have done it successfully. And it is always exciting to see that Koolhaas and Eisenman are able to surprise us with their ideas each time.

Personally, I do find both architects admirable, in their relentless passion to pursue and teach design from the unconventional angle. Rem Koohlaas has always been looking at the mundane issues from a different perspective, from the entire series of studies on Shopping in his published Harvard’s guide to shopping, to this earlier works like SMLXL. Yet, Peter Eisenman, is constantly on the lookout on form making and the utilization, or manipulation of diagrams to create spaces. I could still remember the first time when I flipped open the pages of Eisenman’s House X. The series of diagrams presented different possibilities and rejection against the conventional definition of form. Seemingly confusing at that time, but as my thoughts seemed to mature over the years, I began to appreciate the ideas poured into the book. But, as what I have always said to some of my contemporaries, it is hard to decipher any architectural theory books, as with time, you will always discover new nuggets of information that seemed to nestle quietly within the covers of the book. Gaston Bachelard’s Poetics of Space, or even the Event Cities series by Bernard Tschumi, can never be finished and simply tucked aside. Reading the series published by AA London, and besides Super Critical, has never failed to inspired me to consider whether I should work on my PHD. It seems that I am now at a cross-road again, when the current state of matter cannot satisfy my need to inspire myself, once again…

After sitting through the book for 5 hours straight, I was suddenly inspired to go through my collection of design books, and to see if any of the books should be re-read. Then, it has struck me that the Singapore design climate has changed for the better within these few years, and with some of my peers trying their best to inspire everyone towards better architectural design, and the need for Singapore architectural to venture beyond out local shores, I think that increases the responsibilities of local design academia. We have the responsibility to inspire the younger generation towards design excellence, whilst making design education for accessible to all. But, then again, we do have a huge gap to close up if we were to reach the level of energy, that are present in London or New York. So, a food for thought, if critical regionalism is a concept that is so yesteryears, are there any asian architects who have the enthusiasm in translating theories into architecture now? Or, maybe, it is time for this new generation of architects to start talking. I am starting to miss those discussions that happened in Singapore, back in the 70s or 80s, when William Lim, Tay Kheng Soon and the group started to talk about asian architecture critically. But, to differentiate, there is a vast difference between complaining versus being critical. Being critical, in my own words, is to ponder on the existing, offering insights and solutions to the underlying problems, whilst reflecting on what might have went wrong. Somehow, I am missing my times working on my post-graduate research thesis, and there are so many interesting research ideas people were working on within their cubicles, and the discussion on our thesis topics were so thought-provoking.

I guess the recent London trip and making that holy pilgrimage to AA London has stirred many mixed feelings within me. Being inspired by AA and the level of energy that resides in the creative field in London, and the many possibilities that happen in London. Is it the right time for Singapore to adopt the similar critical standpoint towards what is happening regionally or locally? I remembered my last presentation at Re:Act’s organized events for SIA, on how participatory design is the new way forward. During the last presentation, we were debating on whether Singapore’s design community is ready for new movements in design, and whether the time is right. Mr Tay Kheng Soon was present and he was talking about the time being right and definitely is at the current state when the current design industry is seemingly ready for such changes. Yet, I guess it is the time for new designers to take a stand on what defines their designs, or perhaps, rediscover the individualism that appeared to be lost.