Revive, Don't Redefine

 In Kenneth Frampton's essay on Critical Regionalism he addresses some design flaws of modern architects. These particular quotes struck me, the first by Paul Ricoeur from History and Truth: 

"It is a fact: every culture cannot sustain and absorb the shock of modern civilization. There is the paradox: how to become modern and to return to sources; how to revive an old dormant civilization and take part in universal civilization."

This paradox often becomes an internal yet overly simplified conflict for designers, especially in this generation that aggrandizes "sustainability" and historic preservation. Frampton makes a critical point on how we, as future architects, must approach this shift in design mentality:

"But it is necessary, as I have already suggested, to distinguish between Critical Regionalism and simple-minded attempts to revive the hypothetical forms of a lost vernacular."

Like he said, we must make an effort to critically engage architecture with its context, in every element, so that we don't actually lose the essence of a place's culture and roots of its unique community. Young architects need to remain sensitive to how design really shapes regions and has been through history, rather than just copying surface-level aspects of its architecture to satisfy a cultural "aesthetic." Is it unethical to approach a revival of history in this way, by redefining surface-level details with a modern twist, without paying attention to the deeper context of a place? Does this neglect the true meaning of vernacular or just make it less visible over time?