ArchiCulture Cafe number TEN

This week's lecture was a powerful experience which outlined the struggle in South Africa from the time of the inception of Apartheid through to the election of Nelson Mandela and the abolishment of Apartheid. The audio tracks played were stark, shocking, powerful and harsh and added a great deal to the images of both cultural identity and cultural conflicts. As well as outlining the effects of Apartheid on the South African cultural identity, the presentation described a case study which was an example of the translation of culture into architectural form.
Considering the images included in the presentation, I'm assuming that the level of architectural adornment throughout this country is high and intricate. The images showed geometric patterns littering the walls of native architecture in stark, bright colours which I found I somehow knew instinctively were definitive of the native South African culture. This instinctive perception of cultural iconic imagery made me think about cultural icons and the description of the struggle between black people and white people in this country made me think of the owners of these cultural icons. Of coures, I thought, the black native people who originally occupied the land are the true owners of these beautiful iconic adornments. Then this thought led me on to think of the question "do cultural icons have owners at all?" as well as "when there are two seperate origins of cultural beginning present in the one country, how does the culture that is formed by both origins combined define itself in a way that appeases both origins?"
When considering the first question, I found the concept of owning a cultural icon initially repulsive. Although cultures are made up of groups of individual people, the icons that form the cultural identity could surely not be owned by any one person but instead owned by all people of that culture simultaneously. The concept of ownership pulled images into my head of money, trade and property but immediately after an image of a person saying the words "my country" appeared.
When considering the second question, I was immediately struck by the complexity of it as well as the similarity to Australian and Indigenous cultures. I can't pretend that I know the answer to this question - perhaps it can't be answered because of all the variables and circumstancial elements. But upon contemplating both the South African and Australian histories and their possessions of violence and oppression, I came to speculate that maybe the culture that is formed by both origins combined will never be as sound, rich and steady as the two seperate origins individually. This thought made me a little bit sad.
The case study illustrated in the presentation described the Red Location Museum in New Brighton, Port Elizabeth. The existence of 'illegal' shanty towns in this location provided the main spark for the design of the Museum. These shanty towns were the dwellings of people who were shut out as a result of cultural-origin-conflict. The accommodations in these towns were insufficient and laced with poverty, labour and individual strivings. In addition to these shanty towns, the factories in which most of the shanty-town-dwellers obtained meager earnings were also extracted as part of the design for the Museum.
I found it beautiful the way the architect had decided to use the materials which formed the most difficult and strenuous environments these people encountered. The materials, usually associated with destitute circumstances, were transformed into a symbol of cultural strength through a change in context. Here, the architecture not only helped to acknowledge the unsatisfactory circumstances in which these people lived, but it also helped to strengthen the collective people in their views and actions. Through recognition and encouragement in the form of the museum the people of this culture were empowered.

ArchiCulture Cafe number NINE

This week's lecture was about public art and its influence on cultural and public activity. The examples presented were predominantly from Brisbane as the discussed Art Built-in Policy is a Queensland government policy. The promise by the policy writers that "The Art Built-in Policy will position Queensland as an innovative, progressive and culturally active state" presents the word culture used in a context where it refers to the arts-aspects of Australian contemporary culture. In this context, 'cultural' is used to define the arts as they appear to the public of Queensland as well as the wider population of Australia. But this use of the terms culture and cultural could be justified when considering the suggestion that a great deal of the representation of a particular culture's identity could be held in that culture's performative and visual arts.
When I was studying art and art history, it was often stated that artists are social commentators who translate the practices of their culture back to the public through the lens of their formulated opinion. If an artist makes an artwork which is to be displayed publicly and which comments positively on the culture of the site in which it is placed, it is suggested that outsiders and onlookers are more likely to respond positively to that site.
Not only outsiders and onlookers but local people could benefit from such an installation. As mentioned in the lecture, a piece of public art would ameliorate the area in which it is placed in a number of ways. Most of these ways were of benefit to the larger macro environment such as economy, employment rates and tourism. But on a smaller level, benefits could be as simple as making the workplace of local individuals more aesthetically pleasing and therefore less depressing.
In addition to the micro-level benefits of lifting workplace depression, it was stated in the lecture that public art provides jobs for artists and artsworkers. During the second (and my last) year of my art degree, the concern of becoming a poor, part-time-worker-part-time-artist was commonplace. The passion for art was not diminished for most by this looming probability but the preference, of course, was to work for art and with art on the whole. If public art, then, is providing jobs for artists, and artists could be described as social commentators, the cycle has the potential to have perpetual and very positive results.
The cyclical nature of this relationship between artists and public art is reminiscent for me of the cyclical nature of culture and architecture. Public art is the product of the work of an individual (the artist) and because it has come from that individual it represents a part of their identity. But because it is part of a public environment, it also influences the outside people who interact with, move past and look at it. Similarly to this, architecture is the product of the work of an individual (the architect) and because it has come from that individual is represents a part of their identity. But because it is part of a public environment, as well as being able to be inhabited or worked in, it also influences the lives and experiences of outside people.

ArchiCulture Cafe number EIGHT

This week, Raghavendra Guddur Reddy gave a talk on visual design, outlining ten commandments to consider. The first commandment (Thou shalt design - NOT create art) was very very interesting to me as I have studied both Art and Design. The comparison between the intent of design and art suggested that the designer works for the masses and the artist works for themselves. I found this to be pretty accurate - the process of art-making could be a similar one to designing something, but, of course, the end result differs in definition and intent. Design has always held for me a base point of informing an audience. The design of something puts across a message, whether it be for the education of an audience or the influence of a visitor to a space. An artwork could contribute to an individual's experience in these ways as well but often artworks are not created with the sole purpose of informing at heart. I also found from the descriptions offered of both design and art that design was illustrated as a thing intrinsically possessing an amount of order and progression, while art could have both these things but is usually not defined as possessing these things. Previous to this lecture I hadn't considered this difference between the two entities.
In addition to finding these things, I also found that the artwork was presented here as a 'bad' thing. While in informing (and/or designing) it would probably be best to stick to the ideals of design, I tend to think it probably wouldn't harm anyone to add elements of art to a design proposal - but only where it adheres to the design commandments of course.
The rest of the lecture I found highly useful and I intend to keep a copy to refer to in future when creating design presentations. Even though the ideas and instructions presented are usually considered in design presentation, I found it helpful for them to be layed out in an order (designed ?) and articulated in such a way as to be easily accessible by all.

ArchiCulture Cafe number SEVEN

This week's lecture Urban Indigenous Place Values given by Kelly Greenop presented to me a number of fascinating ideas to contemplate when designing.
The first was the idea that place consists of a great number of aspects (like culture!) and that the consideration of the place involved with architectural and design interventions is paramount to the overall meaning of the finished product. The cognitive and sensory experiences of the user of a space makes up their understanding of the place of a design outcome even before they enter the site - at the very least cultural ideologies and events attached to the location and details of a site will inform a user's idea of the type of experience they are to have there. Kelly explored this, mentioning experiential aspects such as social, historical and territorial associations that could be attached to specific places.
The second was the idea that the traditional and historical aspects and the contemporary aspects of a cultural group may not necessarily link together in a way that is obvious or conducive to an uncomplicated manifestation of cultural practices that may have been easy in the past. The example given was the iconic images of contemporary Brisbane and Indigenous identity. The apparently disjointed relationship between these two identities presents, to me, a number of stimulating prospects for architectural interventions.
The third was the fact that cultures change over time with progressions of technology and liberal social shifts. As a designer, it would be important to know which practices, objects and concepts of a particular culture are contemporary and which are historical. The use of cultural aspects which come from a certain time period could hold local meaning which contradict the conceptual intent of a particular design proposal.
The fourth is the idea of place changing meaning through the translation between Indigenous and non-Indigenous occupation. The meaning associated with Indigenous historical occupations of a particular site may be starkly contradictory to the meaning associated with non-Indigenous site proposals or existing buildings. I tend to think it would be extremely difficult to appease both sides of this dichotomy with so many cultural aspects to consider.
Following on from this idea of conflicting meanings in place, I found the Inala example was very interesting in that it started as a predominantly non-Indigenous site and now has a very strong Indigenous population. It was fascinating to consider that some of the Inala Indigenous population presented in the lecture formed a resolute connection to the site of their current dwellings. Attaching this meaning to a contemporary site which might not necessarily hold an historical link with Indigenous culture suggests to me a site-specific aspect of Indigenous culture. This site-specific importance is extremely fascinating to me as a designer as it could provide a rich amount of material for design solutions.