More and more it is agreed upon that a universal architectural framework is no longer the answer of the future. From theories such as Kenneth Frampton’s critical regionalism, and the growth of interest in practices such as vernacular architecture, tropical modernism, and even postmodernism, the architectural community seems to working towards an international effort of social sustainability with the rise in popularity in concepts such as participatory planning, insurgent practices, informal use etc. This could be seen as a response to what (Hirsch,2014) describes as the sterilization and unfamiliarity of space. The design process has been altered leading to an unfamiliar, ambiguous continuously repeated creation of space and place almost separated from the experiences and needs of its users. With the growing concern and aim of bringing the human element back to the forefront of architecture, there seems to be a return to basics, essentials, and rituals.
Re-Defining Ritual
Rightfully so the term Ritual is initially associated with the spiritual and religious often conjuring up images of sacred ceremonies and rites. However, about the development of architecture, the focus will be on the ritual/ritual practices of the every day, the routine day-to-day acts and practices which are seemingly unimportant but shape life. Though seemingly mundane, rituals are not monotonous but playful and changing expressed daily in Lefebvrian concepts of rhythm, people, and space, it is almost a collision of people, moments, and encounters. Through architecture, the ritual becomes an opportunity to move past the passive and neutral, architecture will become a memorable factor of a daily routine, and the ritual’s reoccurrence is not boring but integral, creating moments and realities.
From Ritual to Form
While currently, the idea of architecture practice built from ritual is seemingly more conceptual than concrete, it is a return. Gotfried Semper in his text “Style in the Technical and Tectonic Arts; or Practical Aesthetics” (2004) terms what he describes as Stoffwechsel, a material transfer in which everyday actions create a transfer of forms, for example, weaving evolves from a singular rope to a woven building wall, a simple ritual life practice becomes an architectural manifestation. “The wall of a building woven from textile fibres or branches is echoed in a brick pattern or a painted imitation of fabric. The forms of a wooden roof structure can be transferred to iron” (Semper,2004). Architecture is not only returning to the creation of physical form from ritual but from this point forward it becomes a commemoration of not only individual but communal activity arising from the simplicity of everyday actions.
Through the acknowledgment and acceptance of users’ ritual practices, life is no longer divided into pre-assumed spatial compositions in which rituals/practices are forced to work within but expressed in more functional responsive, exciting, and flexible solutions. Rituals are no longer about religious sacredness but the sacredness of everyday people, their actions and needs, of the human, with architecture as a setting highlighting the significance and pleasure of life and its rituals. Architecture and the design process instead of being the static background begin to move past assumptions and focus on utility, style, and aesthetics and become actively engaged. As (Frank,2016) highlights architecture should no longer be separated from the life and needs of inhabitants but is directly affected by it, it will no longer be about the singular structure, rooted in a singular moment but re-introduces the everyday use, experiences, and rituals.
This re-engagement doesn’t discard the architecture of the current, still keeping contemporary ideals and within global trends such as sustainability, technology, and innovation but embedded in a context reflecting ritual through material, craft, local practices, and development of new kinds of architectural interventions, proposing new answers, developments, and solutions. By re-engaging with rituals, architecture becomes performance as defined in “The Theatre of Everyday Life” (1995), a continual negotiation of people and place, design/architecture becomes an encounter of experiences, moments, and rituals with buildings and spaces beginning to actively revive identity. Through the return, architecture changes and evolves following rituals and practices not surrendering but acknowledging, more closely reflecting society, people, and their complex realm of practices, social and physical. This return to ritual might not initially cause a total re-consideration but begin as a reflection on the architectural practice questioning the role of the architect as practitioner, enforcer, or collaborator.
While this view of the future is seemingly simple and maybe un-exiting, it is established through a lot of work not just from the architectural community but society at large. It focuses not on the development of architecture and its processes simply as a physical manifestation, but as a social starting point fully embedded in humanity interconnected and grappling with concepts such as value but economic and social, hierarchies, power, identity, culture, and expression with the hopes of creating an architecture which begins to mirror the society which it aims to serve.
Reference list:
- Alison Bick Hirsch (2014). City Choreographer. U of Minnesota Press.
- De Certeau, M. (1984). The Practice of Everyday Life. Berkeley: University of California Press.
- Franck, K.A. (2016). Architecture timed : designing with time in mind. West Sussex: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
- Gottfried Semper and Harry Francis Mallgrave (2007). Style : style in the technical and tectonic arts ; or, practical aesthetics. Los Angeles, Calif.: Getty Research Inst., [Ca.
- Livingstone, N. and Matthews, P. (2017). Liminal Spaces and Theorising the Permanence of Transience. In: Transience and Permanence in Urban Development . New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, pp.31–45.
- Read, A. (2003). Theatre and Everyday Life. Routledge.
