Department of Architecture & Planning

Permanent URI for this collection

https://escholar.umt.edu.pk/handle/123456789/1167

Browse

Browsing Department of Architecture & Planning by Author "Syed Abdul Mateen"

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Virtuoso enclave: museum of modern art and hi-tech
    (University of Management and Technology Lahore, 2017) Syed Abdul Mateen
    We live in a world where everything you touch has infinite possibilities and insurmountable meanings, Yet there seems to be a constant dichotomy within each sphere of dialogue, with each end being a string of contingencies in itself. It is said that architecture, like all art, can and does have its philosophical argument, with each architect holding his own end of the string and pulling ; each school of thought addressing a set of notions and issues that are vital to them. Keeping in mind set patterns of architectural discourse, it would be interesting to observe if architecture could belong to a group of philosophers that negate all inherent meaning. Could then the diverse language of architecture depict the views of a society that is incongruent and incoherent? Looking around the cities of Pakistan, observing architecture, which has grown historically from a montage of borrowed images; it is clear to see that we are victims of situational absurdity. Concrete block after concrete block, glass tower after glass tower, most of our urban environment is not what may be called absurd construction, even Tough they may look it. Instead it would be wise to say that they are thought or unskilled architecture, serving only purposes of function, that too without much sensitivity. For an 'absurd building' (if their exists such a thing) is not one whose functionality is distorted and is incoherent in its visualization but one that has been preconceived as an in congruency within this concrete and glass maze. If the absurd is born of the dichotomy between 'the human need and the unreasonable silence of the world' then by that standard everything is absurd ; for all tangible and intangible situations can be viewed as needs, and all reactions or consequences can be measure by the relativity of their sibation. Neither can be pinpointed, neither can be considered righteous or true. Th. Is view causes all things, including architecture, to lose meaning, hence making all efforts futile and despondent. But can architecture really have no meaning? From the archetypal childhood drawing of the house it is clear that architecture is a symbol of solidarity and comfort. It is viewed as a vessel that carTies a function, which in tum, holds meaning. So if architecture were to have no inherent meaning would it then also have to disobey the laws of functionality? And does this lack of functionally then make the building just a pile of bricks? It is human nature to appropriate space, and it has been observed that the user is able to find a bener suited functionality for a space than an architect viewing his drawings; for lived and shared experience can never equal a preconceived notion. But if absurd architecture were limited to its visual sphere, then that would make it not only shallow and superfluous, it would also take away from the notion that architecture can be layers of juxtaposed expressions. If a building cannot convey the intention of the architect, it is no longer a testament to his philosophy. So for an absurd building to convey its meaninglessness, does it have to, b like the emperor's new clothes