: *sounds like a city *city of sound ***BuiltEnvironment&Sound.

If architecture is indeed a sensory experience as has been determined in previous blog entries, then the aspect of sound is another detail that calls for attention as well, especially when discussing the relationship between the built environment and people. Past blogs, in particular the one covering the South African Constitutional Court, refer to the visual interpretations of architecture and to an extent touch, as a consequence of materiality. The Constitutional Court entry highlighted the importance of architectural elements that appeal to the senses and consciousness of the user; in particular, the “privileged sociable senses” of hearing and vision, as Pallasmaa puts it. These two senses have advanced through today’s technological culture, whilst the other three have remained distinctly private functions, not to mention less relevant to architecture. To become an object that is truly incorporates the senses then a building must to deal with issues of sound as a culturally specific design factor.

Pallasmaa asserts that ours is primarily an ocular culture, and this affects our interpretation of architecture. However, this may be because it is the first thing, and maybe only thing we consider when analyzing architecture. In this sense, architecture may be losing some connection with an important cultural component. It has been /said/ that music is one of the most profitable of commodities, for the simple fact that it is the most accessible and broadly reaching forms of art; this may give some insight into the importance of the aural recognition of the built environment.

The article in the Saturday edition of Brisbane’s Courier Mail that prompted this blog entry describes the impact of sound on a city, and its relationship to the people who live there. Invariably, the article describes the sounds that emanate from Brisbane in particular, from the constant low-end drone noticeable in any city, to the noise of breeze passing through a creaky Queenslander and cheers of a football stadium. The sound described here is not ‘designed’ it just comes about through circumstance, but is referred to with fondness by the people in the article. Here is where an opportunity is commonly lost in architecture. In /this/ blog about sound and design, Joel Sanders contends that many people believe "architecture is about being quiet", whereas there's a rich history of sound and architecture; especially in pre-literate societies. Sander’s ‘Mix House’ is an attempt to integrate spaces sonically, placing a renewed importance on sound.

Architecture and music is an area of study that is related to this. There is /much/ /writing/ about the similarities between the processes of the two ‘arts’, exemplified by /Johann Wolfgang von Goethe’s quote/ that “architecture is music frozen” (at least in my view) as some sort of emotional attachment between composed sound and space. But this steers away from the point at hand. The issue is not to see the musical influence of architecture, nor music at all, but the audible interpretations of architecture. Many parallels can be drawn between the acts of making music and architecture as well as the possible links in emotional response to architecture and music, but these are extremely personal things. If I were to experience the city of Brisbane whilst listening to the new M83, it would be different to someone else’s experience under the same circumstance. Music remains to be appreciated at an individual level, but the sound of the city is created by the masses, for the masses.

Pallasmaa claims that the dominance of visuals in today’s culture through consumer culture is to the detriment of other sensory experiences in architecture [see: Wallpaper person]. This obsession with sight is causing a feeling of “detachment and alienation” and is effectively denying an aspect of architecture that has long been culturally important.

Pallasmaa, J (1996). The Eyes of the Skin: Architecture and the Senses; Wiley-Academy, New York.

: Click to enlarge

: [BRISBANE : cnr. Roma St. & George St. : Supreme Court]

The recently unveiled design for the Brisbane Supreme Court is another major work in Brisbane undertaken by the office of /Architectus/, replacing the ‘outdated’ Supreme Court close-by. As a method of capturing what may appeal to the public about architecture and how it is used in terms of a political device, there is some validity in looking at the comments of politicians when regarding public buildings. Premier Peter Beattie /said/ about that “the current courts were built almost 40 years ago and don’t meet the needs of the modern justice system which puts a heavier emphasis on victims of crime.” The new Supreme Court intends to establish itself as a response to this, embodying the ideas of justice.

At this point it is timely to compare the Brisbane Supreme Court with the subject of last weeks lecture; the South African Constitutional Court. In that blog I discussed how specific the architectural response was to the culture of South Africa, in terms of ‘functional symbols’. While the two buildings are comparable on the grounds of being a court, there are distinctions between the two in how they function as a public building. A difference in response to culture can also be observed in the functionality of the buildings. Dr Hocking talked about efforts to maintain a fair judicial system through the planning off discreet paths in the building and, while it seems that the Constitutional Court of Johannesburg is not concerned with this. These differences are seen through different interpretations of how the public will use the building, and indeed the culture that the building finds itself.

Whilst in the lecture Dr. John Hockings of Architectus spoke of a desire to turn away from the cliché, or concept, which would permeate through the entire design. I consider the Supreme Court, by and large, to be highly metaphorical, which seems to correspond to the idea of an all-pervasive design ‘concept’. I believe this can be successful in a public building, and is successful here, though not without reservations. The idea of openness and transparency that is talked about in press releases from politicians and /Chief Justice Paul de Jersey/ give evidence of how such a concept is utilized within the interaction between a public space and the community it serves (the transparency of modern democracy). The metaphor of ‘transparency’ is imbued quite literally in the Courthouse, and in doing so successfully acts as a civic building that is trying to portray a message to the community, in this case a political one. Interestingly, both buildings at night perform as lanterns in the landscape attempting to act as a beacon of democracy, symbolizing the building as central to the operation of their cities.

Where the Supreme Court is attempting to embody the typical worldwide values of democracy, the Constitutional Court of South Africa does too, though on a much more localized scale (the Brisbane building is localized in its response to climate.) Essentially, the distinction between the two buildings is the culture in which it is situated and is responding to, but is made tangible in their materials. I consider the Constitutional Court of South Africa as a building that is imbued with culture, whereas the Supreme Court on Brisbane’s George Street is reflecting the values held within its surrounding culture. Both make significant connections with society despite these different approaches (or in the case of the as yet un-built Supreme Court, hope to).

Supreme Court images taken from http://www.justice.qld.gov.au/news/capworks.htm#

/!#>*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.

MusgraveParkSouthBrisbane (((((((O> aboriginal issues in architecture

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.