I am happy to be given the opportunity to be part of the academic circle. I am happy to have met a towering figure, Prof Tajuddin. I am happy to meet the actors in person. My observation is that there is a drop in quality across the board and the weakness stem from the inability of the actor to understand the issue sufficiently to enable one to formulate a scheme via the vehicle of architecture as a socio-cultural intervention. There is a sheer lack of maturity in thought and fear in presenting discourse confidently. It seems to me that these generations are locked up in a box of misguided democracy. Their inclination to work with Computer Aided Drafting has resulted in a myopic approach diminishing the very important aspect of Architecture of understanding of 3D spaces, experiential with materiality, communicating ideas via sketches and endless discourse. For such, they are the “zombies” our University has created. A revivalism of the production model is urgently called for.
I accepted an invitation to a local Public University down south of the Peninsular for a Design Critique of their Final Year Studio M.Arch. I am not aware that I am placed with one towering figure Professor Tajuddin who has his marked as one of the top notch critique of our Malaysian way of living Architecture. His presence was felt strongly in the Studio where there are some degrees of sheer dictation as to the direction the students are heading. A controversial figure comes a controversial topic for the Studio to digest – Social Cultural Aspect of Architecture. I am not sure if Religion is part and parcel of its component as it is a fiery subject given the current climate of religious fanaticism in Malaysia. Any sort of provocation to slightest degree would landed me in Jail for no apparent reason under the ambiguous doctrine of sedition.
Sure enough there is a young soul who dealt in this very subject marrying the 3 largest religion into one roof implying the exclusion of Muhammadism doctrine. I am not so sure if she is trying to bury herself attempting such feat but when comes dealing with such a delicate subject of theology, divinity, sanctity, trinity and so forth, where are the common ground among these 3 institutes of religion? So, as I observed she is scrapping the surface as to where be shared facilities and designated facilities for the congregations of the faithful. I am not convinced that she has dwell deep into the subject to allow the interpretation of an issue be resolved by architectural vehicles. At one point I am trying to dialogue but greatly ended up monologue with interjection of the Prof’s point of view. There is a chilling silent of “I don’t agree with you…” but a constant deluge of acceptance. The ideation of this sort resulted in the production of a deformed “Lotus Dome” resemblance of the BaHai Temple in India with a withered Lotus Dome. The technical knowhow to construct such dome is far from satisfactory.
It is not the better one I have seen so far...