Timelessness
I’ve been hit by the word “timeless” in architecture many a times and have completely no idea what is it specific to. The trend now seems to be “sustainability”; and some architects refer this is “timelessness” too since they can preserve long into the future, yet this should not be titled “timeless”, as the literal meaning to it states that the word attached to that of an object should make it everlasting or eternal. A second interpretation to timeless architecture styles however means that the “art” of architecture would still be appreciated over a very long period of time; but what does it even mean? Don’t we study history to appreciate these arts or architecture? And if the building should last until today, does it mean it was so great to fight the test of nature and time that it evokes the action of preservation, hence officially entitling it as a timeless?
I have taken this word into two different understandings, the physical and literal way as opposed to the more artsy way based on affinity we call ‘style’. Yet, in both ways I believe the word timelessness is still inappropriately used (because I’m so goddamned stubborn to take things literally in black and white). In the physical way, timelessness should rightfully been born millenniums ago with the whole stone age ‘architecture’ or just stones, which last until today, if not, the pyramids at least – funny to realize these architecture are inhabitable. So, where are the buildings that are habitable – haven’t they all turned into ‘preserved’ monuments of tourist attractions? Now I’m not arguing in the point of view of what architecture really means (because I can’t define it for myself) but if we were to take it as what most architecture does – inhabit humans; the whole timeless idea seems to have expired now hasn’t it? *Unless ofcourse, you state that the inhabitation of humans include the dead, but that’s cheating =P* If I had to think of buildings which still inhabit occupants built long ago, it could only be places of worship and religious significance. Does this mean it is the way to live? Perhaps I should have stated that the argument is based on homes or offices. So is there such a thing as timeless dwellings in the built architecture? Isn’t architecture built for sake of ourselves? To build for the use/appreciation of humans – to make life better. I believe that if the inevitable modernization and development were to halt, these buildings and lifestyles may be considered timeless. Then again, the only way to do that is to stop time itself, hence making EVERYTHING timeless. Isn’t it an inevitable course of human nature to progress and search for a healthier and better living? Creating all sorts of inventions, light, computers, internet, making life more efficient, to allow us to ‘do more’ in ‘less time’. So sticking closer to topic, can architecture last forever? The answer, theoretically, should be yes. It’s all about the nature of the materials used to make it last physically, forever. Whether or not the function or appreciation of which the building has been built for lasts just as long – is a different question. If construction stopped today, and all we did was maintain what has been built, only cracks and prevent leakage; everything would last – perhaps eternally. Sadly, this would also mean no progress in architecture. It is only in human nature to strive for the better, be innovative, to enrich identity. This leads to the second interpretation, appreciation of style.
I believe it’s arguable and that timelessness in architectural style do exist – being appreciated just as much throughout time. This would mean referring to buildings which don’t necessarily have to be built for living, but may be monumental or religious or merely just as art itself. However, in this argument of habitable architecture lasting forever, we see again that it does not in fact exist in 99% of houses – unless you lived in a castle =) So, in my opinion now, it is absurd to intentionally create a timeless style as appreciation is a subjective manner to everyone – most if not all, enjoy diversity. Style is an intangible definition, it does not die as long as one still believes in it, and luckily for this case, history education preserves all that’s been created. It is therefore impossible to affect the world with one style and make it last forever as this subjective appreciation comes along with culture and also development – the common style however, will inevitably change through introduction of inventions or innovations.
There is however one catch I’ve come to realize – combining the intangible and tangible – making style synonymous with structural building systems. What Corbusier has done to make himself one of the most important man in architecture – creation of functional efficiency as the ‘new innovation’, what becomes inevitable to use out of ingenious physical development. I dare say though, even this style shall perish in the future – it only takes time for the unavoidable human nature and innovative minds to make a ‘better living’, destroying most of everything in its course.
Conclusion?
A building physically lasting while losing its initial motive does not suffice as timeless architecture. Dwellings should not be built to last. Style alone is too wide a range to dub timelessness. Mother Nature > ‘Man’ufacturing.
Why do they even bother trying to come up with timelessness anyway? Is it to truly solve the problem of problems? Or are these individuals just afraid of fading beyond memory?
Perhaps it’s a lesson to us, to be less narrow minded and zooming out for a wider understanding of this pattern of nature. Embrace the inevitable, allow for change, let time take its course, not fight it. Architecture has been built for humans anyway. Why make them last forever when we don’t? In my opinion, the only thing that lasts forever is, the course of nature itself. Do what we can now to preserve ourselves as we so love, educate the next generation well – it is not US as individuals who should live forever, its US as a human race that should strive for eternity, let ‘timelessness’ be not of a thing but the lesson learnt from it.
No comments:
Post a Comment