Singapore is transforming
I happened to venture into a few exhibitions this weekend. The NUS city exhibition at Marina Square, the NUS architecture year one studios' "Still" exhibition at SAM. Finally got myself more actively going to exhibitions which happened to be more nowadays in singapore. Perhaps still living the life in London. Just a different place...
There were of course a few forums too. I don't know why but it seems more happening this week. Went to the one at SAM, the TAP! forum of "Architect in a bottle" and lastly the "Save the buildings" series of Rojak.
Out of all these, the more notable ones are the forums of Rojak and TAP! Perhaps more notable because they reminded me of the current book that I am reading, "Multitude". Both forums, despite different in topics and nature, were equally informative and raised a certain awareness of what-goes-on in our society. Perhaps our society is really changing for the better it seems.
The forum at TAP! started at the National Library at around 7pm with 3 guest speakers and one moderator. All are architects. Of course, with a topic as "Architect in a bottle". Responses from the floor came from a variety of members from the public, there were practising architects, students, professor from NUS economics department, foreigners from India, engineers etc. All questioning the role of Architect, especially in the context of Singapore.
On the other hand, Rojak was more of a presentation of 10 creators from different fields of design, be it architecture, film, graphics, product design, etc. It was more of a sporadic nature and attracted a larger number of crowd in an old-fashion event room at the modernist building Golden Mile Complex. It was a very informal sharing sessions. Sharing ideas, process, jokes and of course drinks.
Upon comparison, TAP! appeared to be very open and appraochable to the public with a strong agenda as compared to the adhoc and less publicised ROJAK presentations. However, internally, it seems otherwise. The forum of TAP! involved mainly architects who are still very much concerned with a more elitist approach of architecture, despite their emphasis of architects as a facilitator. The speakers did not fully explore the opportunity of inviting ideas and participations. In fact, speakers from the floor seemed to be more aware of the situation and in sync with the agenda of the forum. ROJAK, despite its appearing elitist nature, seemed to be more open and approachable. Different presentors shared their creative works and feelings towards their works in a more honest and direct way. Such sincerity was felt in most of the speakers and most ideas are communicated freely with no barriers of social responsibilities. Questions flew across the room very casually between the presentors and the floor audience (literally FLOOR audience). ROJAK in a way seems to have more potential as compared to TAP! in achieving a participatory approach to social activism.
Anyway, kudos to both. For at least they are doing something in Singapore. For at least they dare to speak and dare to act. Singapore is transforming.
*visit www.farm.sg for ROJAK and www.reallyarchitecture.blogspot.com for TAP! a.k.a. RE:ACT
posted by khow at 3:17 PM
4 Comments:
actually you;re pretty talkative....
in virtual reality....
hi, thanks for sharing!
not being defensive, but i find it was an invitation to respond on the following, quoted from your bolg.
"The forum of TAP! involved mainly architects who are still very much concerned with a more elitist approach of architecture, despite their emphasis of architects as a facilitator. ... ROJAK, despite its appearing elitist nature, seemed to be more open and approachable."
you're right in observing that the TAP forum became somewhat exclusive (i won't use the word elitist), it could have been due to the moderator who did not manage to guide the conversation that way. that's the problem we are facing: architects were, in the past, meant to be leaders in the field of nation building. today's role has been blurred due to many diluting factors (i'm sure you know them already). but we are still taking the responsibility for the outcome (like for example, if a roof tile crashes down and hits your foot). to me, it is not an easy task in engaging the public in design (as it is, we're already experiencing hell designing for a committee). i'd prefer to say the panel who were having the discussion during the forum are still exploring.. we may never find the answer, but we must continue to try.
rojak, on the other hand, is all fun and games, except, as you have also observed, when it came to ling hao's presentation (and peng beng's). that's because artists have no real social responsibilities. they can live in their own little caves, coming out occasionally only to hang their laundry. i really envy their lifestyle man.. but isn't it quite exclusive in a way?
I only want to point out the potential of ROJAK. I agree that it seems
easier for artist to be more "carefree" in their works as compared to
architects. It is perhaps somehow more exclusive in that sense.
However, due to this nature, they possess all the chance in the world
to be even more socially active as compared to us. For example, Casey
Chen during one of his "carefree" explorations, found a way to make
dynamo bottles more attractive. Definitely a socially charged effort
in the form of recyling. Junfeng's "changi murals" raised our social
awareness of how "indifferent" singaporeans are with respect to our
history compared to other countries. He as a film maker tries to reach
out to our society thru his works. Dennis Tan and Aiwei's "see u
tommorrow", even though they are doing almost "in their own world"
products they are socially active too. For the very least, they
participated in the Yogyakarta's disaster by joining the effort in
selling the tshirts.
These are the contributions these artists had made for the society,
and that's wat i see. That is what they see value in their course of
work and that is their social responsibilities. On the other hand,
ling hao's totally not engagin presentation of architecture does not
raise anything that concerns the floor auddience on that day for
positive, constructive participation. And it is only cos we are in the
same line that we understand the social interactions between the
constuction workers and the clients etc. The so-called social
responsibilities that's separating us from the artists. So what I am
questioning or perhaps even requesting fellow architects to walk a few
steps away from what they are doing and question themselves the
conventional way of practising. And even the way of presenting. We are
still very much stuck in finding a role for ourselves,and also in our
own language, when perhaps all we need to do is just diffuse ourselves
into the multitude of efforts to do something for the society? I guess
it is always hard to drop the baggage of our well established
profession. I quote widodo's " architect is a vocation, not a
profession."
anonymous sounds like weihan... can almost imagine him saying that.
Post a Comment
<< Home