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.