Musgrave Park near West End, Brisbane has long been a location of worth within the Brisbane aboriginal community. There have been well advanced proposals to construct a ‘cultural centre’ on the site with discussion being, in particular since the formation of the Musgrave Park Aboriginal Corporation (NVAC) in 1985. The NVAC promoted the idea of an Aboriginal cultural centre situated here, given that the site has been so prominent in the community. As /Brown/ affirms, besides being a favourite site for major public events, it is a place of special importance to the Aboriginal community. The /intentions/ of the new cultural centre are to offer a space for Indigenous artists to develop and display their skills as well as providing job training opportunities and a neutral site for holding feasts, ceremonies and resolving disputes. The proposed project is to incorporate conference and meeting rooms, an art gallery and exhibition space, a theatrette and café. Given the nature of Aboriginal dwelling since European settlement, included the imposed foreign forms, laws, language, and world view, a Cultural Centre that is specific to the Aboriginal community takes on a much greater significance than many a mere building; there is an opportunity to create a built form in a central location where /Aboriginal values are validated and strengthened/. Currently the Musgrave Park Cultural Centre is stalled at the design stage, due to differences of opinion between the participants in the Cultural Centre.”It was ceremonial land ... a place of spirit memories." Paddy Jerome
"...it's sacred to us - that's where our people died." Aunty Jane Arnold
Through the recent focus on indigenous issues in architecture I have observed a correlation between this, and topics covered in the group seminar project, particularly the notion of architecture as being either an object or subject of its cultural surrounds. As lecturer Carroll Go-Sam alleged, unlike most other buildings in Australia, there is a compulsion by architects to engage in expressionist or figurative representation of buildings for Indigenous clients or about Indigenous people. Essentially, this is a matter of place-making, which can be defined as having “cognitive and behavioural aspects, as well as artefactual and architectural components” (Memmott and Long 2002:43-44). This is has been a valid point throughout the study of culture in architecture and has become even more apparent in these two lectures. In /Aboriginal Identities in Architecture/ Fantin talks of contemporary instances of the abstraction and symbolism applied to Aboriginal culture. Whilst this has its place, the author believes that an architecture pertaining more to architecture with Aboriginal identity through client involvement and authorization, respecting Aboriginal social practices and revering existing places and histories without attempting to abstract them into semiotic means. The symbolism expressed in a building classified as an object is usually deemed as excessive. The two extremes presented here can be categorized as subjects and objects of culture, where Fantin is calling for subjective design; social practices that dictate architecture. The symbolism expressed in a building classified as an object is usually deemed as excessive.
The logo that will be used for the centre is a silhouette of a Bunya Tree; this is a symbolic reminder of the historical interconnection and relationships between the tribes of south-east Queensland through the Bunya Tree as a place of gathering.In the initial ideas for the cultural centre by Innovarchi / Kirk, there was a lack of engagement with the site by being introverted and defensive to the site, rather than embracing it, which is vital given the site’s community status. This was not the only concern raised. Personally, I had some issues reconciling some topics in both the lecture and reading, and particular elements of some selected design proposals, primarily the inclusion of ancestral connections through the design, as outlined in Fantin. Surely, when adhering the design to a notion of a single ancestor, then this would lead to symbolism. As stated in this article, there is no need to represent ancestors to the Aboriginal users of the space, but in a building such as a gallery or cultural centre, where there will be many other users, then such symbolism is encouraged. Perhaps this is where the derision for a white influence on indigenous architecture is created; not only does the completed building cater too much to European sensibilities, but the design process as well. The statement of intention behind the cultural declares that this would be a centre primarily for the indigenous community of Brisbane, so one can assume that the Musgrave Park Cultural Centre would not embody abstraction of ancestors in its design.
In summary of the topics raised through the series of talks about indigenous architecture and working through the seminar, I believe it is important to recognize the mistake of typecasting, but more importantly, its physical incarnation as ‘reification’. It is common flaw in many indigenous architecture projects (as discussed above), though it is not limited to this. In my opinion the key point to emerge from these talks is that it is difficult to design beyond reified notions of culture, but doing so creates a far more appropriate space. Outlined in the talk by Kelly Greenop was the definition of culture as a classification of attitudes and beliefs that a group of people commonly share, given that this is not a physical thing makes it difficult to respond to through built form, but leads to a less semiotic architecture that is more relevant to Aboriginal lifestyles.
Memmott, P. & Long, S. 2002 “Place Theory and Place Maintenance in Indigenous Australia” in Urban Policy and Research, No. 1, Vol. 20.
No comments:
Post a Comment