Architecture as a shaper of identity by Mohannad Khalaf
Identity needs a place and people. People communicate through language to establish themselves within a functional society, in addition to understanding themselves through each other; whereas places allow us to communicate with the external world we exist in. Places can guide, shelter, communicate a message and establish a sense of belonging, further to allowing us to identify who we are and not only where we are. Supportive of this concept, the role of architecture is therefore as essential to people as language. After all, language and architecture are both manifestations of culture, used as identifiers. Architecture reflects every aspect of human life while having a close relationship with all features of society, such as history, politics, economy and people’s values.1
Similar to people, places can also possess an identity. It can be defined as the sense of association, where an individual feels part of, or in relation to, a certain place; this is a sense that develops through a process of mental communication. In this case, national identity is a prime example. A country or a city can identify an individual, for example: “I am Scottish”, “I am Glaswegian”.2 Moreover, a place is a mediatory element that allows us to understand and organize ourselves within our surroundings in the world. Places also deliver a set of emotionally charged characteristics that are communicated through symbols and icons. These symbols and icons engage our emotions through memory, sentiment and lived experiences. Therefore, the places we find ourselves in not only engage our minds but they also gradually define who we are. In the field of psychology, this process of identification with the external environment acts as a bridge between our mental state and our physical awareness. In essence, it is a process that extends beyond our sensory experiences to engage broader collective senses and feelings, allowing the individual to feel secure and recognised within their environment.3
A place is one of the identifying factors that allow us to understand the world we live in by shaping it to our needs and means of evolving. Places allow us to understand our history, reflect on it and look towards a better future. Although places can be everywhere and anywhere, it is through architecture where we establish our varied aspects of life. In addition to exhibiting who we are as individuals and as a collective group within a society.
However, driven by economy and profit, the architecture of today is shadowing the historical expressions of our built environment with the help of our technological advancements and ’starchitects’. The modern culture is, therefore, reconstructing our civilization with visual supremacy. It has abandoned identity and belonging by replacing ’human architecture’ that is by essence conveyed through the qualities of its physical presence, rather than its visual appeal, or the image.4
Many scholars have attributed this continuous discord in the profession to the industrialization of the 20th century, where professions became formalized and craftsmanship began to decline. Architecture was not an exception; a gap between the architect's ’artistic’ side and the ’technological’ was ever-increasing. Leaders of modern architecture were indeed aware of this discord yet continued to produce architecture that is less regarded with the individual and more concerned with aesthetics. In 1924 the American-German architect Mies Van Der Rohe expressed that; “the individual is losing significance; his destiny is no longer what interest us”.5
Despite losing their fundamental role in society, that is of being the expresser of culture and values of a certain time and place, architects today continue to follow their ‘icons’ in their displacement of cultural identity with an aesthetic appearance—a value that only corresponds to portraying a personal ambition that is directed towards claiming a seat under the spotlight. Consequently, the language of architecture is vanishing to become merely a product of visual aesthetics or unstudied social demands. Furthermore, cultures and identities are shadowed and misplaced through their rightful representation, which is through the notion of a place. When places have no sense of history nor traditions, values are misrepresented while celebrating bold engineering achievements which does not correlate with the surrounding environment; resulting in affecting the field of architecture to the point where its language is more harmful than helpful.6
Mohannad is an architectural freelancer and a recent graduate from the University of Strathclyde. He graduated with a Master’s degree in advanced architectural design with a distinction. Through his studies, Mohannad’s work has gained national and local recognition through several architectural student awards that focused on design, technical execution and research. Most recently, Mohannad’s thesis project [self and other] received the RIAS Rowand Anderson Silver medal for best Scottish student.
References:
Unwin, S (2014). Analysing Architecture. 4th ed. Oxfordshire: Routledge. 30-33.
Hall, S. (1992). The Question of Cultural Identity. In: Hall, S, Held, D, Mcgrew T Modernity and Its Futures. Trowbridge: Redwood Books. 273-327.
Laing, R. (1990). Self and Others. 2nd ed. London: Penguin publications.
Salingaros, A, Masden, K. (2007). Restructuring 21st Century Architecture Through Human Intelligence. ArchNet-IJAR: International Journal of Architectural Research. 1 (1), pp.
Rowe, C (1994). The Architecture Of Good Intentions: Towards a possible retrospect. London: Academy Editions. 14-30.
Vermaas, P (2008). Philosophy and design: from engineering to architecture. Dordrecht: Springer. 273-344.