The Visible & Invisible in Thai Architecture Culture: The Problem of the Reduction & Discourses on Thai Architecture.
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
The Visible and Invisible of Thai Architecture Culture concern with the fundamental problem of theory and concepts developed in contemporary Thai architectural culture.
Traditional Thai architecture is characterized as a high gable with elevated terrace, a floor, and a courtyard [1], thus, with this perspective; to be genuine traditional ‘Thai’ architecture is to be constructed within this framework. This notion is, however, needed to be re-thought, and re-defined whether it is enough in the development of contemporary Thai architecture. Since, architecture is a dynamic organization, through built form, which brings together human behavior, sociology, economics, social hierarchical order, etc. [2]. Architecture, therefore, cannot be valued merely at its formal representation. It is, itself, life, unfortunately that along the history of architectural development, architecture is mainly perceived merely as a formal representation and leaves out what have generated those particular built forms. Through this; architecture becomes static which leads to nowhere but a museum where is preserved for spectacles, and separated from everyday life. This phenomena has happened in the development of contemporary Thai architecture in which built form is perceived as passive given seperatecy from social factors which lends its body. Thus, many of contemporary Thai architectures have lost its connection, not with the past but, with its time.
This established notion is, also, found in most of the cultural studies in which culture is perceived as static and characterized as a symbol of the state or nation, which could not be changed. It becomes problematic since, as soon as culture is reduced to a merely representation, it looses not only its dynamism, but also its force and power.
This paper is mainly concentrated on the construction of ‘Thai’ architecture. Attention is given to:
- the social mechanism of the ‘Thais’ – the invisible,
- how the invisible effects the construction of architecture, and its organization – the visible, and finally,
- how architecture, and its organization, both the intangible (space, volume, proportion, scale etc.), and the tangible (form, wall, roof, floor, ornaments, material, etc.) functions in the construction of ‘Thainess.’
This paper is, however, not intended to criticize, nor to put the question of (Thai) Architecture to the conclusion, but rather it is intended to re-think, re-question, and re-define how architectural functions might be, by deferring a thought to the other fields of knowledge to which it might introduce different notions to the development of theory and concept in contemporary Thai architecture.
Although the concentration is on the context of Thai, it is hoped to extend the discussion across the divided line between states and nations to the more broader sense which is what might be the development of theory and concept in architecture also, what architecture can do, to what extent do architectural academic and practices could bring about the value of its creation.
Downloads
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
All material is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0) License, unless otherwise stated. As such, authors are free to share, copy, and redistribute the material in any medium or format. The authors must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. The authors may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use. The authors may not use the material for commercial purposes. If the authors remix, transform, or build upon the material, they may not distribute the modified material, unless permission is obtained from JARS. Final, accepted versions of the paper may be posted on third party repositories, provided appropriate acknowledgement to the original source is clearly noted.
References
This quality is widely accepted and established by many of respectful Thai architectural scholars. Among of those is Ruitai Jaijongrak in his book The Traditional Thai House (in Thai). private limited edition, Bangkok, 1979.
This particular issue regarding architectural development in relation to sociology, economics, social changes in Thai society has been pointed out in Vimolsiddhi Horayangkura ed. Al., The Development of Concept and Design in Architecture: Past, Present, and Future. Bangkok: Amarin Printing Group, 1993, and Vimolsiddhi Horayangkura, “The Architecture of Thailand: Change amid Continuity: The New Challenge,” in Jon Lim (ed.), Transforming Traditions. Singapore: Unique Press Pte Ltd., 2001.
Although this question is posted for the evolution of Thai Architecture, such a question should be applied for the development of theory and concept in Contemporary Architecture in general.
‘Architecture’ in this regard means of both the invisible (space, volumn, proportion, scale etc.), and the visible (wall,roof, floor, ornaments, material, etc.).
For more details on traditional Thai house see Rutai Jaijongrak. The Traditional Thai House (in Thai). private limited edition, Bangkok, 1979., Sumet Jumsai. Naga (in English). Bangkok,1997. pp. 86, and Clarence Aasen, Architecture of Siam Thailand in Reflections on Thai Culture. Collected Writings, New York: Oxford University Press, 1998. pp.115.
This phenomena leads to the problem of authenticity which could be a significant problem to be addressed, as well.
The concerning of the value constructed is raised by numerous thinkers among of those is Edmund Husserl. In his book, The Origin of the Geometry, he investigated how geometry had been originated, and value constructed to become natural – our interest shall be in the inquiry back into the most original sense in which geometry once arose, was present as the tradition of millennia, is still present for us, and is still being worked on in a lively forward development.– our human existence moves within innumerable traditions. The whole cultural world, in all its forms, exists through traditions. These forms have arisen as such not merelycausally; we also know already that tradition is precisely tradition, having arisen within our human space through human activity.— Jacques Derrida. Edmund Husserl’s Origin of the Geometry: an Introduction / Jacques Derrida. Translated, with a preface and afterward, by John P. Leavey, Jr. Reprint. Originally published: Stony Brook, N.Y. : N. Hays, 1978. pp. 158.
Human beings in this matter are those individual, not as universal, who shape, and are shaped by their environments.
William J. Klausner. Culture Conflict: Thailand in Reflections on Thai Culture. Collected Writings, Bangkok: Siam Society, 4th eds., 1993. pp.253.
See appendix A for more details of the influence of social mechanism of the Thais.
William J. Klausner. Culture Conflict: Thailand in Reflections on Thai Culture. Collected Writings, Bangkok: Siam Society, 4th eds., 1993. pp. 107.
Ibid. pp. 107.
Akin Rabibhadana. The Organization of Thai Society, and the Process of Change in the Early Bangkok Period 1782-1873. Southeast Asia Program, Thesis. Ithaca: Cornell University, 1969. pp. 21.
Jeremy Bentham’s Panopticon quoted in Michael Foucault. “Panopticism” in Discipline and Punish. New York: Vintage Books eds., 1995. pp. 206-207.
Although, most of the mural paintings in this paper are focused on those painted during the early Rattanakorsin period in which the political system was still the absolute monarchy, as well as the hierarchical social position is still dominant, the strategy of the constructed institutional power is not different from that of the present day.
The descriptions of the following are taken mainly from No na Paknam. Puthaisawan Hall, Title: Mural Paintings of Thailand Series. Bangkokoran, 2nd eds., 1997. pp. 27-30.
There are many of the thinkers who pay attention to the concept of everyday life practice for example: Mary McLeod. “Henri Lefebvre’s Critique of Everyday Life: An Introduction,” pp. 9-29, Henri Lefebrve. “The Everyday and Everydayness,” pp.32-37; both are in Architecture of the Everyday. eds. Steven Harris and Deborah Berk. New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1997; and Michael de Certeau in The Practice of Everyday Life. Trans by Steven Rendall. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984. pp. 90-130.
Akin Rabibhadana. The Organization of Thai Society, and the Process of Change in the Early Bangkok Period 1782-1873. Southeast Asia Program, Thesis. Ithaca: Cornell University, 1969. pp.16.
ibid. pp16-17.
Architecture of Siam: A Cultural History Interpretation. New York: Oxford University Paress, 1998. pp. 106, also see Akin Rabibhadana. The Organization of Thai Society, and the Process of Change in the Early Bangkok Period 1782-1873.Southeast Asia Program, Thesis. Ithaca: Cornell University, 1969 for more details.
Ibid. pp. 106.