Architecture stands as a powerful instrument of cultural production, transcribing the essence of local traditions, values, and identities. However, it is crucial to explore how the culture autonomously interacts with and stands by itself within the constructed environment. While thoughtfully blending local elements, architecture can autonomously reinforce and evolve the very culture it draws from, creating a dynamic interplay where both influence and elevate each other.
According to Sue Kent in the essay “The Cultural Revolution in Architecture,” while discussing Amos Rapoport, culture is a socially constructed abstraction that is expressed in the concrete realm of architecture and behaviour. Considering this position, each culture will differ in its interpretation of the built environment.
This article will discuss how often culture can be seen as an epiphenomenon of architecture, while both depend on each other to maintain the constant flow and maintenance of their future and current state.
Architecture as a Cultural Epiphenomenon and Culture as an Architectural Epiphenomenon
The word “epiphenomenon” refers to a phenomenon that exists at the same time as another one but is not related to it, as a secondary effect or byproduct that arrives from but does not casually influence the process. As discussed by K. Michael Hays (1984) the correlation between culture and architecture, while seemingly obvious, also invites constant discussions to open to broader debates and interpretations, especially considering the ceaseless development of architectural production and often faces conflicting perspectives involved.
The architectural process develops and reaffirms cultural narratives by reinforcing cultural aspects and helping to ensure their continuity, additionally, the built environment through its forms has the power to ennoble the culture that produces it. It not only anchors the cultural narratives in the physical landscape but also ensures their continuity and relevance for future generations.
Architecture can be developed and seen inside a blank space and depth of silence, where only the construction acquires its voice and creates solely the architectural meaning of the project. However, the environment and the culture can be louder and create conflicts with the built environment; there is still a correlation between the local culture, which can be noticed by the local interpreter, by misunderstanding and misreading the architectural product. This symbiotic relationship underscores the importance of valuing form over mere function, emphasising the architectural product as a cultural artefact rather than just a practical structure. It is important to mention that the concept’s misinterpretations might have valuable benefits, allowing the possibility of critical discussions and a constant creative process.
Complexities in Questioning the Environment
Part of the challenges of understanding and interfering in the public environment, alongside many others, is the socio-cultural factors. In the superficiality, it can be indicated as the most direct way of affecting the environment and society. Climate, available building materials, the local topography, and political and economic factors shape the process and create the form and function of the building, as a result, it affects the external and creates a new internal culture.
As mentioned by Keith Diaz Moore in the book “Culture-Meaning-Architecture” the complexities lie in how one defines the environment. While the persona “architect” holds the power and capability of shaping and constantly developing the built environment, we might say that it reflects directly in the cultural dynamic, so also the architect holds the power to shape the cultural environment alongside the constructed one, as our environment is integrally related to the cultural phenomena.
The reflection here lies on how the architects limit the concept process inside the discussion about elements under the control and focus on what is possible to create, this way, addressing part of the problem. The built environment and culture have a vast relationship and constantly influence each other in the process, and impact the behaviours, experiences, and outcomes. It “is a function both of variations between people and variations in the settings and how they interact” (Canter, p.08).
How to understand the local culture and built environment can be understood as a reflection of the questions, perceptions, and interpretations proposed. As Rapoport (1994) mentions “different types of definitions and conceptualizations are useful for particular types of questions and problems, of different disciplines and fields”. Understanding the plurality that the socio-cultural environment presents inside the construction environment, opens to new inquiries and a broader understanding of the social space and its connections.
To truly celebrate and perpetuate local culture, it is essential to delineate the architectural product from the interpreter. This separation allows the architecture itself to communicate and embody cultural stories, enabling the built environment to stand as a testament to cultural heritage, independent of external interpretations.
By championing architecture as a medium for cultural continuity, we can foster environments that resonate with local identity and pride, creating spaces that are not only functional but also deeply meaningful and culturally significant.
References:
Canter, D. (2000). Seven assumptions for Investigative Environmental Psychology. In Wapner, S., Dmick, J., Yamamoto, T., & Minami, H. (Eds). Theoretical Perspectives in Environmental Behaviour Research: Underlying Assumptions, research problems and methodologies. New York: Plenum. PP 191- 206
K., M.H. (1984). Critical Architecture: Between Culture and Form. Perspecta, [online] 21, pp.12–29. Available at: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0079-0958%281984%2921%3C14%3ACABCAF%3E2.0.CO%3B2-3 [Accessed 1 Aug. 2024].
Keith Diaz Moore (2019). Culture-Meaning-Architecture. Routledge.
