Teaching History for Architectural Students in Indonesia1

Kemas Ridwan KurniawanCenter for History and Theory of Architectural Studies

Department of ArchitectureUniversity of Indonesia

Email: r_kemas@hotmail.co.uk

Abstract

History is not a favourite discipline for most of architectural students in Indonesia. Many students said that history is a boring course, and not a priority in Indonesian architectural profession. Since firstly introduced by Dutch lecturers in colonial era, the methodology of architectural history in Indonesia did not change so much. Solitary buildings and monuments, heroic architects, and architectural styles are continuously topics that are delivered to students since the first architectural school in Indonesia was established. The tendency to teach this course as part of academic discourse rather than practice makes this situation worse. In order to get out from under this situation, this paper tries to rethink the position of architectural history in architectural education in Indonesia and open an alternative perspective that architectural history is not a rigid or solid discipline, but a critical methodology and a creative tool to support both academic thinking and design practice. The intersection of this discourse with other disciplines is encouraged in order to open the possibility to reveal new ideas that support architectural education in Indonesia. With such a critical view, architectural history becomes a staging post of thinking, feeling and practicing.

1 This paper is presented in the International Conference on ‘Challenges and Experiences in Developing Architectural Education in Asia,’ held by the Department of Architecture Islamic University of Indonesia, June 8 – 10, 2007, in Yogyakarta.

Introduction

Architectural history has been developed further than the 19th century understanding of science or history of art. The field of historical and critical studies of the built environment – architecture, urbanism, landscape, planning – is deeper than single buildings or monuments, and wider than just specific dates, facts and times (quantitative method). It intersects with other disciplines such as social, cultural, political

and economic studies, and also interplays with some subjects such as gender, race, ethnicity, and postcolonialism, thus creating a new kind of architectural history … Today, we live in a more dynamic

and complex society in which architecture in all of its aspects is difficult to ignore.2

My opinion written on the abstract was based on my sixteen-years’ experience trying to understand the relationship between history and architecture that started from my early interaction with the discipline of history of architecture in my undergraduate education, continued in my limited professional experience and carries on to my involvement in teaching architectural history courses until today. For me, history and architecture today is not as simple as before, as these are both part of our everyday life.

This paper tries to rethink history and architecture as part of a discursive practice, namely architectural history, which generates history as a discipline not only to be critical, but also to be creative. Most of the cases in this paper are taken from architectural education in the University of Indonesia, where I teach, and from one in the Bartlett School, University College London where I gained historical knowledge through its postgraduate program. I hope that the thoughts delivered through this paper can enrich our further vision in redefining and rethinking the position of history in architectural education in Indonesia, either for theoretical or practical purposes. My critique to this paper is the limitation that I intend to explore theories related to non-Western references which have different perspectives. Therefore, cultural sensibility is something to be challenged in this paper.

Rethinking History and ArchitectureHistory3 today is a ‘shifting, problematic discourse.’4 History concerns not only times (past, present and future), but also involves power (not ‘What is history?’ rather ‘Who is history for?’), as well as new information and new connections. If we learn about history, for example, history from Sir Banister Fletcher, it does not mean that we learn about actual history of architecture from the truth of 19th and 20th century like it actually was. History of architecture in this context relies on the texts provided by Fletcher. Students must learn and are informed by those texts. At this point we have to realize that there is limitation we get from understanding history like that. What about other histories which have not been told? Everytime you go; every time you are doing an activity; history is everywhere.

Let us move to think about history and architecture. Here are some definitions we can gather:2 Kurniawan, Kemas Ridwan, The Architecture and Urbanism of Indonesian Tin Mining: A Colonial and Postcolonial History with Particular Reference to Mentok Bangka, A Ph.D Thesis in Architecture at the Bartlett School University College London (2005), p. 16.3 The word history derived from Greek historia, meant ‘knowledge, narrative’ (source of English story) and from Latin histor (learned man). In Indonesian is translated as ‘sejarah’ derived from Arab word ‘syajarah’ (means family tree or geneology). This word is often paired with other Arab word ‘hikayat’ (story), to be ‘hikayat sejarah’ (means handed down story), which is in Javanese tradition is similar to the word ‘babad’. Another word which refers to syajarah is tarikh (concerning time periodization). 4 ‘History is a shifting, problematic discourse, ostensibly about an aspect of the world, the past, that is produced by a group of present-minded workers (overwhelmingly in our culture salaried historians), who go about their work in mutually recognisable ways that are epistemologically, methodologically, ideologically, and practically positioned and whose products, once in circulation, are subject to a series of use and abuses that are logically infinite, but which in actuality generally correspond to a range of power bases that exist at any given moment and which structure and distribute the meanings of histories along a dominant-marginal spectrum.’ Jenkins, Keith, Re-thinking History (London & New York: Routledge, 1991), p. 26.

2

First, History of Architecture concerns architecture as an object of history. Through this term, we analyse architecture as an object.

Second, History in Architecture, acknowledges history as a methodology

(aspect of time) in architectural discourse. Here, the past becomes the focus in

architectural studies.

Third, History about Architecture refers to architecture as a discipline. Through this term, history tells the story about architectural discipline.

Fourth, Architectural History introduces discursive aspects in architecture through

historical discourse.5 Here, history and architecture intersect in various ways.

Sudradjat distinguished between architectural history and history of architecture. He said that,

‘Architectural history is the name given to an academic field, the purpose of which is to explain architecture as a social and historical phenomenon. It follows that the expression “the history of architecture” refers to the object of study of architectural history.’6

However, his definition of architectural history to be part of an academic field can be questioned. Because if we understand history as a discourse,7 this term can also be extended for practical (professional) purposes, because history now is everywhere, both in theory and in practice. Therefore, on theory, we can say that architectural history is a kind of history (as a discourse) which is characterized by its intention to explain architecture as a kind of discursive practice. In this context, history (concerned with time: past, present and future) and architecture (concerned with space, built-environment, people, power, etc.) intersect to each other creating a critical methodology of thinking which is a theory about ‘how’ (method) to know something. In practice, we can say that architectural historians can be many kinds of historians, who can create many kinds of historiographies. Even, in such a context, radically and possibly, an architectural historian can practice like an architect.

Adrian Forty, an architectural historian, criticized the failure of architectural history before 1980s to contribute in the ‘making of so-called reality.’ He acknowledged that architectural history ‘seemed permanently stuck in a backwater of archaeology and attribution.’8 To get out from this regime of thinking we should approach architecture not as a solitary buildings or solid structures, but as a process, which needs creative tools and

5 For discussion about ‘discourse’, please read Foucault, Michael, The Archaelogy of Knowledge (London: Tavistock Publications, 1974).6. Sudradjat, Iwan, A Study of Indonesian Architectural History, A PhD Thesis at thee Department of Architecture University of Sydney (February 1991), p. 1.7 See Foucault (1974)8 Borden, Iain et.al (eds.), Strangely Familiar, narratives of architecture in the city (London & New York: Routledge, 1996), p. SF 5.

3

mechanism to reveal new meanings. Architecture is not only ‘what architects do’, but ‘architecture is the product of a way of thinking,’9 A historian can creatively write, converse or speculate about architecture, and therefore will need multitudinous procedures (mechanisms, proposals, and operations), leading his/her historiographies into many kinds of historiographies. Historians freely create their own historiographies, and are responsible for that creation. Here, historians have an authority to interpret their history and whose history for them. History should not be interpreted merely on theoretical level but also can be explored into practical level. According to Borden, “Every architect, every historian, every theorist, knowingly or not, uses some intersection of history and theory every time they design, document, discuss or speculate.”’10

Fig. 1. Can architectural history be tasted?(‘licking one of the travertine panels which form the walls of the Barcelona Pavilion,’ Bartlett, 2000)..

‘Strangely Familiar,’11 a group of people from various backgrounds in academics, journalism, and design practices, interested in history, architecture and the city, took an opposite direction against conventional history, which treats history of architecture as being a static, rigid and very object-minded orientation. Their thoughts are very close to the thinking of Henry Lefebvre, especially about his Marxism ideas on Production of Space (Here, architecture is a social and cultural production). History for them is something active that, “impacts on and informs our everyday lives in the spaces and places we use.”12 History becomes a subject and even very subjective, and therefore part of our lives. In order to do this, they choose a variety kind of uncommon edifices, city spaces, and events, which are ‘often considered insignificant historically’ and their ‘perspectives rarely voiced.’13 They hope that, through this mode, new histories of architecture and city can be told, as their motto: ‘The strange becomes familiar, and the familiar becomes strange.’14

Fig. 2. Some of Strangely Familiar’s Projects.

9 Leach, Neil, ‘Introduction’, in Leach, Neil (ed.), Rethinking Architecture; A Reader in Cultural Theory (London & New York: Routledge, 1997), p. xv.10. Borden, Iain, ‘History and Theory’, ‘http://www.bartlett.ucl.ac.uk/history_theory/overview.html,’ (accessed 17 May 2002).11 This group was co-founded in 1994 by Iain Borden, Joe Kerr, Alicia Pivaro and Jane Rendell. They were all graduated from the Bartlett School of Architecture, UK.12 Borden, Iain et.al (eds.), Strangely Familiar, p. SF 8.13 Borden, Iain et.al (eds.), Strangely Familiar, p. SF 8.14 Borden, Iain et.al (eds.), Strangely Familiar, p. SF 9.

4

Challenges in EducationBefore 1950s, architectural education in Indonesia was taught as part of civil engineering, in which architecture was considered as a building technique. When architectural education became an autonomous Department under ‘Bagian Bangunan Fakultet Tehnik Universitet Indonesia’ in Bandung in 1950, the notion of architecture was focused on technical and functional aspects, while artistic consideration was taught in tandem with ‘Bagian Seni Rupa.’ The school’s curriculum adopted the one from Bouwkundige Afdeling in Delft University of Technology, from where the founders of the school were educated.

Since the turn of 20th century (in colonial times), debates related to identity and notion of Indonesian architecture coloured the journey of architectural education here. There were two opposite views: the first one viewed the importance of Indonesian traditional architecture and how it influenced the possible mixture between Eastern and Western (Indo-European) architectural styles; the second one regarded the superiority of Western-modern style and how it should dominate the identity of current architectural identity. These debates then continued after the War and even influenced the mindset and teaching of architectural education especially in architectural design studio.

In relation to architectural history, after 1950s, almost all of the topics concerned the generalisation of World History and Indonesian architectural History. Hegelian methodology on the spirit of age and the idea of progress, dominated the academic curriculum. Topics about the World architecture were often divided into Western and Asian Architecture, while ones about Indonesian architectural history focused on Indonesian antiquities such as foreign antiquities (temples and colonial buildings)15 and traditional houses.16

At the same time, there was a growing concern on how architectural history can give significant advantage in the formation of architectural practice? Thirty-four years after the first school was established, in the first Forum Nasional Pendidikan Arsitektur (1984) in Semarang, architectural history becomes an important issue. This course was thought to be influential for the actualisation of an ideal Indonesian architecture.17 Its importance was strengthened in 1989, when Lembaga Sejarah Arsitektur Indonesia (LSAI) was established in Bandung. Through LSAI, several meetings18 were held amongst people concerned about the teaching of architectural history in the Indonesian architectural education. Although some difficulties in carrying out a common agenda, this forum could be said to be successful enough in embracing national institutions to talk together and think about current issues.

The return of some lecturers from their overseas studies, such as Budi A. Sukada (UI) in 1980s and Iwan Sudradjat (ITB) in 1990s, brought some changes in the schools. There was a different perspective between these two: Sukada places history of architecture over architectural history, and approached architecture as an object of architectural works (buildings). For undergraduates, he concentrated the topics around modern periods (both World architectural history and Indonesian ones), and suggested that traditional architecture should be taught separately. On the other hand, Sudradjat takes a different approach. For Sudradjat, architecture is not only about buildings, but also involves socio-cultural phenomena. Sudradjat accepted traditional architecture as part of architectural history through its historiographical studies.

Let us now move to an example in the University of Indonesia. Due to a lack of lecturers, the architectural history course (since 1965 to 1975) in this University once only focused on materials concerning Indonesian history, and the lecturer was from archaelogical background.19 In 1980s, Budi A. Sukada, graduated from A.A School in the UK, and brought new teaching materials in architectural history. His article in 1985, ‘Mencari Jawaban Lewat Sejarah’ was interesting for the circle of Indonesian architectural historians.20 Through

15 See Sudradjat (1991)16 See Djauhari Sumintardja, Kompendium Sejarah Arsitektur (1978).17 Sudradjat (1991), p. 204.18 Through FNPSA (Forum Nasional Pengajaran Sejarah Arsitektur)19 Western architectural history was taught after 1976.20 Sukada, Budi A. ‘Mencari Jawaban Lewat Sejarah,’ in Ikatan Arsitek Indonesia, Arsitek Indonesia Dalam Pembangunan, Kongres Nasional III – IAI, Jakarta 14 – 16 Maret 1985, Jakarta: Bidang Sinfar

5

precedent theory on history, he suggested how the relationship between history and practice can be explained. In 2000, the shift from a professional base curriculum into pre-professional one had led UI to change its 1996’s curriculum. Here, history was captured as something academically oriented.

My proposition that history in architectural education is a boring course does not mean that history’s fate should be like that. Here, I try to offer an alternative method besides one of a class teaching model which only relies on monotonous lectures, and treats history as an absolute truth delivered by a ‘lecture god’. There is no critical creativity. Sometimes to break silence or make a student pay attention to the class, a lecture tells humorous story. This situation was also accompanied by cultural sensibilities in Indonesian communities, where some topics are taboo. So, lecturers should have a careful approach to the class.

Other challenge included an opinion that teaching methods in Indonesian education (as a basic school) tends to direct students to be passive, rather than active. Here, students were directed to use memorization technique rather than thinking. Critique on memorization is that this method shows ‘the last desperate act of one who does not understand’. Memorization is also part of doctrinal modes, which is not condusive to generate a critical thinking for students. So what we should have here is a teaching methodology, which is not via ‘memorization’, rather via ‘memory’ or via thinking and understanding.

Fig. 3. Analytical thinking scheme in learning process.

Creative Process: Scoring History

‘For architectural history to be taken seriously, we must develop a body of serious and useful research which can make the benefits of studying architectural history more evident, not only to educators and professionals but also to the public. For this purpose, we need to move from perceiving architecture as a set of values and esthetic or stylistic criteria embodied in certain groups of objects, to an alternative view, to one that considers architecture in a much broader sense as a part of a large social, political, economic and cultural landscape. What this means is the rejection of architecture as an autonomous object of study outside of its historical context. It follows that architecture figures within a historical interpretative account rather than being placed at its centre.’21

IAI, 1987, pp. 36-46.21 Sudradjat (1991), p. 220.

6

One of important aspect in a teaching syllaby is an output or outcome. To produce a creative outcome, I am inspired by Lawrence Halprin, to use scoring from The RSVP Cycles’ method.22 According to Halprin, ‘scores are symbolizations of processes which extend over time.’23 Through scoring, a creative process of human thinking can be expressed, and it ‘can stand for something out there in the environment.’24 Topics to be studied and scored are various, from world phenomena to local histories until everyday life.

To motivate students to be active rather than passive is a challenge. I propose to use Active Learning Method, which is based on a ‘trigger.’ This model, which is usually used for medical, scientific and engineering teaching worldwide, can be applied for compulsory or elective courses, with 3 credits minimum. In order to develop a score into a proper historiography, teaching courses can be done through workshops. In the workshop there are varieties of activities, individually or in groups. Making a score in the workshop allows many people to enter into the act of creating a new historiography together. This teaching model needs proper data, references, historiographies and facilities (Internet for instance). An extra effort is needed from lecturers involved. They act as facilitators and should actively monitor the progress of students. In some circumstances there is a possibility of a trained historian or a man who has a particular knowledge to be invited to give a lecture. However, this lecturer should be in the context of a ‘trigger’ or a prompt to stimulate a further discussion.

Fig. 4. One of scoring examples (The RSVP Cycles)

In the Bartlett, the architectural history course for Undergraduates was taught under the title ‘History of Cities and Their Architecture.’ For instance, in the ENVS 1000 unit, the aims of the course are to provide a general knowledge of past architecture and cities, and a stock of ideas for thinking about student’s experiences. Workshops contained lectures, visits, and exercises, and set up presentations by panels of speaker about different elements (Walls, Roofs, Boundaries, Stairs and Concrete) and this continued with a set of questions for students’ response through exercises. These exercises, either in groups or individually, were monitored, and facilitated by lecturers. At the end of the course, an assessment is done through a 2,500 word essay by responding to the questions such as, “What is the relationships between the painting and the built work?”

22 The RSVP stands for Resources, Search, Valuaction, Performance. 23 Halprin, Lawrence, The RSVP Cycles, Creative Processes in the Human Environment (New York: George Brazilee, Inc, 1969), p. 1.24 Edwards, Betty, Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain, A Course in Enhancing Creativity and Artistic Confidence (Los Angeles: Jeremy P. Tarcher, 1989), p. 65.

7

Fig. 5. Bartlett architectural history’s teaching syllaby (2000)

Through this model, workshops can also be broadened and integrated into studio teachings. For example, joint studios done by University of Indonesia with Queensland University of Technology in 1997 and with Universitas Pelita Harapan and Delft University of Technology in 2005. The first one took the topic, ‘Enhancing the Old Environment,’ exploring aspects of history in the Old Town of Jakarta and how memory influenced design practice. The second one took the topic of Sustainable Intervention which explored possible sustainability ideas applied on historic urban areas. Students were asked to collaborate in studio workshops, discussing aspects of history of city and its architecture, and making interpretations, statements and scores of their historiography.

Fig. 6. Students debated in the workshop (UI 2005).

This model is another way of looking at history and architecture, which is not just about ‘recognition, identification, and empirical observation, but which prefers explanation, interpretation and speculation.’25 We do not push students to come to a definitive conclusion and explain everything, rather students may choose and explain a few of different aspects of architecture and cities. Students may obtain more information and knowledge from their peer group, and class discussion as well as various references surrounding us. What is important is how student can recognize and understand various ways of thinking about History, and how they respond to these.

25 Borden, Iain et.al (eds.), Architecture and the Sites of History, Interpretations of Buildings and Cities (Oxford: Butterworth Architecture, 1995), p. 2.

8

Surface Tension:‘The romanticism of the ruin that stands in defiance of Time evokes memories of forgotten histories, so tantalising to visitors of Rome. Monumental city planning, avenues and vistas manifest politics, power and patronage. Iconography and statuary that symbolise the mythology and ceremony once so important to everyday life is lost on the visitor and now redundant.’ (Bartlett, 2006)

Making History:‘We are interested in the new. But we are equally interested in the old. Pre-modernisms and proto-modernisms fascinate us as much as modernisms.’ (Bartlett, 2006)

Cutural Heritage:‘Thanks to the blossoming trade, many Dutch people moved to Batavia, and during that

period, large new commercial and bank buildings were built, the remains of many of which are still visible today.’ (UI, Delft, UPH, 2005)

Fig. 7. Some examples of scoring history.

ConclusionArchitectural history becomes part of reality and is an active process, influencing our everyday life and producing critical ideas, which is the same as design. Here, architecture is always about new possibilities, never stable, and always changes. It does not disregard the past, and nevertheless continuously reinterprets itself. Architectural history and design have similarity, they are both about generating critical reflections on architecture. For the schools in Java especially in Jakarta, liberation in teaching architectural history courses seem not to be a problem. Active Learning limitations on resources, particularly concern schools outside Java. However, creativity is paramount for teaching architectural history for Indonesian students.

References_________, Pendidikan Arsitektur Meniti Masa Depan, Prosiding Seminar Nasional Jurusan Arsitektur Fakultas Teknik Universitas Indonesia,Depok, 2000.

9

_________, Teaching Materials on ‘History of Cities and their Architecture’ for Undergraduate Program. The Bartlett School of Architecture University College London 1999/2000.

_________, Sustainable Interventions, Workshop Jakarta , joined by University of Indonesia, Delft University of Technology, Universitas Pelita Harapan (Jakarta: Stylos, 2005)

Borden, Iain et.al (eds.), Architecture and the Sites of History, Interpretations of Buildings and Cities (Oxford: Butterworth Architecture, 1995).

Borden, Iain (eds.), Strangely Familiar, Narratives of Architecture in the City (London & New York: Routledge, 1996).

Borden, Iain, ‘History and Theory’, ‘http://www.bartlett.ucl.ac.uk/history_theory/overview.html,’ (accessed 17 May 2002).

Cook, Peter (ed.), Bartlett Book of Ideas (London: Bartlett Books of Architecture, 2000).

Edwards, Betty, Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain, A Course in Enhancing Creativity and Artistic Confidence (Los Angeles: Jeremy P. Tarcher, 1989)

Foucault, Michael, The Archaelogy of Knowledge (London: Tavistock Publications, 1974).

Halprin, Lawrence, The RSVP Cycles, Creative Processes in the Human Environment (New York: George Brazilee, Inc, 1969).

Jenkins, Keith, Re-thinking History (London & New York: Routledge, 1991).

Kurniawan, Kemas Ridwan, The Architecture and Urbanism of Indonesian Tin Mining: A Colonial and Postcolonial History with Particular Reference to Mentok Bangka, A Ph.D Thesis in Architecture at the Bartlett School University College London (2005).

Leach, Neil (ed.), Rethinking Architecture; A Reader in Cultural Theory (London & New York: Routledge, 1997).

Sudradjat, Iwan, A Study of Indonesian Architectural History, A PhD Thesis at the Department of Architecture University of Sydney (February 1991).

Sukada, Budi A. ‘Mencari Jawaban Lewat Sejarah,’ in Ikatan Arsitek Indonesia, Arsitek Indonesia Dalam Pembangunan, Kongres Nasional III – IAI, Jakarta 14 – 16 Maret 1985, Jakarta: Bidang Sinfar IAI, 1987, pp. 36-46.

Salim, Suparti A., Ir (ed.), Buku Peringatan 35 Tahun Pendidikan Sarjana Arsitektur di Indonesia (Kongres Pendidikan Sarjana Arsitektur, 1985).

Sumintardja, Djauhari, Kompendium Sejarah Arsitektur (Bandung: Yayasan Bangunan, 1978).

10