As I write this part of the story, I just got back from Bandung, Indonesia. I spent 4 days of nothing but such experience. What does architecture mean there, why does architecture there the way it is today? On what cause does it deliver, just cause by chance every parts of architecture is eventually destroying, and we as the architects destroy it by some means that it will eventually bring some meaningful story behind it. Though you might strongly rejects the destroying parts of architecture by saying the architects will always create, I strongly reject the point where we actually create something but instead destroying some parts and replacing it with something else.
Somewhere lays the words sustainable in the world of architecture nowadays. But let’s take a look in what way architecture are sustainable. On the way the site was picked, the way the studies was made, the tools used for making the design, the paper to draw, the lights and hours spent on the projects, the materials used way afar from the site, the construction of the building or just maybe the way it is used. On which part of it the sustainability tally with all the process, and as such is for the architect or maybe the politician to decide.
Somehow we forget what is important and what is not. The people, the money, or maybe the true form of art and science. We always, in our prime studies day talk about the people instead of the money but does that really happen? On which level do we really got to talk about our opinion instead we listen to someone else’s opinion. Some lacks the extra feel of enthusiasm towards the world of architecture.
The history being told said that the old architects of the world creates a building which resembles the god’s house, the palace of where lies eternal love, the undeniable perfection of art, the ultimate social place for the riches, the ever comfortable place to live under extreme weather condition, and many more but does that still exist in the modern architecture?
What does modern architecture lacks? The old architects were thinkers, are we not thinkers too? What kind of role model should we follow if we think the past thinkers are useless? Will there be any kind of thinkers acceptable if we really give a deep thought on what was said, given by the old humanity. I always doubt every speech given in any kind of form but never do I reject. As to reject is to not think, blindly denying everything and I myself will try ever so hard not to fall that low. As to not think makes you stupid in every way possible. But still it’s hard not to reject as we were thought to be that way.
Are we as students really are learning a dying subject of life matter? I am still a student but I shall say the only ultimate reason of which I love architecture is only because it makes me think more than before. The ultimate fun of it is when two minds collided, but never to reject, accepting every views of point, and at the end of the fun, the mind become not old or the same but a new. And as the process continues it will grow. No two minds will ever think alike in any way possible but as the thinkers think, eventually it will turn out to be the same in different ways.