/!#>*the Constitutional Court of SOUTH AFRICA*<#!\ ARCHITECTURE AS A SOCIAL // POLITICAL TOOL.

Through my previously blog, I discussed the potential for architecture to be a device for social change and as a means of embodying culture. The topics raised in the Musgrave Park blog are also relevant to the story of the Constitutional Court of South Africa. The building /functions/ as an end point to injustice in South Africa, and furthers this through emblematic aesthetic features that acknowledge the end of apartheid.

In previous entries, and in particular the Musgrave Park blog, there has been talk of the semiotic associations and how such aesthetics function only towards those who want to know. Through looking at the Constitutional Court of South Africa, it is apparent that these types of elements within a building can have a meaningful objective behind them. Architecture as an object or subject of culture can be seen as a categorical interpretation of such things as imagery metaphors and, to a degree, stereotypes. When reference to ‘objects’ is made, it is usually commenting on its worthlessness, though here in the Constitutional Court, the symbolism employed acts as a device for all to utilize and does not differentiate between levels of familiarity with the culture, or race. Additionally, instances of symbolic elements have been successful because the semiotics relate directly to function. For instance, /cow hide panels/ that span the length of the judges bench denote the dress of traditional African courts; and /tiles/ that are made up of patterns and art which are prominent in South African culture and used for this very purpose. These examples both contain imagery that is relevant to its particular built element, rather than ‘stylised’ renditions of culture used as decoration. Furthermore, the usage of the site itself aligns loosely with South Africa on the whole, with the previous incarnation of the site being. Therefore, it is appropriate that some elements of the old building remained, but were functional as well, such as the /staircases/ and /arches/ of the prison.

Through looking at the Constitutional Court of South Africa, a new understanding has been developed of the value of materiality as a device of architecture that not only interacts with people in a simple, involuntary emotional way, but may also have long-held connections to a user through ingrained traditions that are material specific. These factors, while able to be utilized within a private space, are especially effective within public buildings, not merely as a visual language telling users of its intentions, but considering the shared culture of materials in a community.