Architecture Does Not Need To Be Fancy

    Last year, when I was studying Marc Augé “Non-Places: An Introduction to Supermodernity,” I was under the impression that our contemporary architecture at almost any location on the earth is lack the sense of an anthropological place. Augé described an anthropological place to have its own deep roots in the natural and human history of its physical location; its people are used to genuinely inherit and live with these roots and history; their politics, economy, and reach could not be farther than a few towns away. What Augé argued is that places had become non-places due to the globalization. One example of this is how technology allows people to relocate far away from their hometown in which they bring with them their values, beliefs and cultures.

    At the time of studying this text, I understood to an extend the idea of architecture used as a mean for globalization. Augé made a list of projects by Starchitects that are seemingly to be out of the context in which it stands. “Tschumi at La Villette, Renzo Piano at Beaubourge or in Nouméa, Gehry in Bilbao, Pei at the Louvre, Nouvel in Paris or New York are the global local, the local in global colours, expressions of the system, its wealth and ostentatious assertiveness.” He argued that the locals are drawn to Starchitects to build whatever it is and because the building is connected to such reputation, it will boost their economy by increasing tourism. He also went as far as to quote Rem Koolhaas’s slogan “Fuck the context!” (Please excuse my language. I just simply quote the text.) In this sense, I agree with Augé that buildings should be designed to consider their context and their anthropological language. But I still feel that something is missing in this analysis.

Moriyama House by SANAA, Japan

    Not until this week or last week that I realized the ingredient that I’ve been missing is the way cultures evolve through time. So before, if you were to ask me how I think about the Moriyama House by SANAA, I would say I really like the concept where the boundaries of inside and outside are completely blurred. But the other side of me (before) would also question how the architecture of the house doesn’t fit into what I would think as an anthropological place of Japanese. However, the two images below can still be recognized as Japan even though the architectural languages are so much different. It is just how buildings are built over time with their respective materials.

Kyoto, Japan

Tokyo, Japan

    Coming back to our class discussion on Part II – Architecture for Whom. The Wed-Bed-Dead opinion between the Moriyama House by SANAA and the Seven Sisters House by Frank Harmon. Even though I wed Moriyama House and dead the other, my decision could be the opposite perhaps if I understand how Charleston architecture evolution better.