Pursal, Arsitektur yang Membodohkan [Architecture of Stupefies]
Bandung: CSS Publishing, 2010
191 + xii pages
ISBN: 978-979-17433-7-2


Architecture, in its development, has become a wicked art. In common language, the word is well described by Kamus Besar Bahasa Indonesia[The Indonesian Primer Dictionary], translated as:

ar.chi.tec.ture
[n] (1) the arts and science of designing and building constructions, bridges, etc; (2) design method and style of a construction

However, among its practitioners, the term itself is highly debatable. Is architecture forever about and limited to construction? If not, what are the definitive limitations? What are the true roles of architects? Whom do they answer to?

One of the most asked questions is “What is the difference between architecture (student) and civil engineering (student)?” followed by semi-conclusive comment, “So then, civil engineers are actually the ones who masters constructability, and architects are the daydreamers?” An oversimplifying view, although not entirely wrong. So, what is “architecture,” essentially?

In this pursuit of an answer, architecture as a discipline is proven to be too insular. Frequently referring to a world believed only by few people in it, it is often considered as exclusive, narrow, and parochial. This only reflects the wide gap of comprehension between the public and the so-called experts.

It is refreshing to see several “experts” try to elaborate the architecture they believe in to the public. The definition of “public” itself may also be interpreted differently. Some define “public” as the future users of their services, those who are interrelated professionally, policy makers, or the most “common” crowd in the field: the future architects themselves, architecture students and want-to-be students. Within this frame of reference, I herein review the latest book by Pursal, abbreviated name of Purnama Salura, entitled Arsitektur yang Membodohkan [Architecture that Stupefies].

From its title, the book is clearly influenced by anti-advertising marketing strategies to draw readers’ attention. Chapter titles also show equally solid sense towards the selection of this theme. Boldly, Pursal headlined the first chapter “How to lose your sanity in designing architecture.” Similar negative logic extends to the last chapter, entitled “How to become an architect that stupefies.” Regrettably, this logic halts at chapter titles. The contents of the book are mostly the author’s arguments of the righteous architecture he dreamed of, not a “wrong” one, let alone “stupid.” Frankly speaking, due to this unfulfilled dream, I felt misled by the book title. Wouldn’t it be nice to see an “expert” reaching a certain level of expertise that he was able to overturn the commonly accepted logic of his own field? To question the “stupidity” of something deemed as stupid, to question the “truth” of something regarded as true?

Putting aside subjective aspirations, the book factually offers the understanding of how extensive architecture can actually be comprehended, simply by looking more closely into the elements related to this object called architecture. The author’s broad knowledge on the subject matters in each chapter were put in a chronological and straightforward way, helps readers to understand architecture better. By simplifying and illustrating several diagrams of prominent thinkers from previous periods, it may be considered as a summary of existing architectural theories and methods.

The entire quest of the book may be condensed to a single diagram Pursal always presents in varying form at the beginning of each chapter (Figure 2). It is through these visualizations that the pattern of logic that underlies the whole book, as well as the surgical knife the author uses, is presented in nearly bare nudity. Nearly, as he still has that tendency to adorn everything visible with illustrations of figures constantly recurring throughout the book, along with illustrations of trees, desks, and chairs; cartoons I assume were drawn by Pursal himself.

Through this diagram alone, we can get a glimpse of Pursal’s fundamental answer on the limitations and definition of architecture. He places “building” at the center. Architecture concerns building and everything that surrounds, shapes and exists because of it. A two-way arrow from and to “building” links to what he considers context: “place”, “designer”, “user”, and “place”. The process does not move in a linear fashion, but reciprocally instead.

Chapter by chapter, Pursal develops his arguments gradually. He starts from context, use, essence, meaning, honesty, nature, culture, objectivity, and lastly: architectural practices. From this elaboration alone we can see how the book was born out of ambitious goal: as a primer expected to deliver all the potent formulas to avoid works that “stupefy”.

Looking back to the past, Pursal appears to be quite prolific in compiling his thoughts into books, including his previous publication ber-Arsitektur [Architecture-ing] (Bandung: Self-published, 2000), that may be read as introductory to his latest book. Being a lecturer at the Architecture School of Parahyangan Catholic University Bandung, it is not surprising to see formulaic approach in his narrative. An authoritative voice, commonly possessed by lecturers, through his way of putting forth questions as chapter titles and providing summary as answers to the preliminary questions in each concluding paragraph of chapter, is therefore inevitable.

With regard to the authoritative air of the book, it—similar to preceding ber-Arsitektur—does seem to aim at students as its ultimate target readers. Its (maximum effort of) simple narrative elaboration, (a little over the edge) informal style, fully illustrated presentation, complete with playful (and rather childish) questions chapter-openers, all add to this impression (see Figure 2 for chapter titles).

Picturing myself as a sophomore in today’s Architecture School, the book will be a great help in mapping the arena I would eventually dive. Every architecture student is certainly familiar with the writings of Francis D.K. Ching, of which their presentation and offsetting technique (black and white, single line illustrations render these books Xerox-friendly—a typical student practice to quench their thirst for knowledge, but confined by not having enough purchasing power to buy original copies) seem to influence the presentation of Arsitektur yang Membodohkan. Time and distribution attempts can only prove if the book will ever match D.K. Ching’s “mandatory” level. However, for the sake of knowledge transfer, I silently wish I were still a student when I found this book. Then, how does an architecture school graduate like myself read it today? And more importantly: does the book speak to a wider audience?

We can learn from influential writings that have changed the way men perceive constructed objects in their environment and the background of their presence, such as Design for the Real World (Papanek, 1971) or Cradle to Cradle (McDonough & Braungart, 2002) which were capable of addressing the wider audience as they touch on issues that draw collective attention in a certain era. Their elaborations are simple without being oversimplifying. The themes are used by the authors to assist readers to comprehend the issues, without at once doubting the readers’ aptitude, and thus are not trapped in the strategy.

Meanwhile, seeing from Pursal’s writing technique, Arsitektur yang Membodohkan is yet to achieve the above quality. Let’s take an example for this passage:

The problem is, now, if apparently there are lots of mistakes in actual practice—then, what to do? Does theory have to refer to practice? It’s best for us to understand it this way: theory has to form relation with practice. If practice is correct, theory will enrich practice. If practice is disorganized, theory has to provide ideal examples. Supposedly, right? Hence, practice will gradually come to a more and more ideal form. Both theory and practice have to complement and improve each other. Supposedly, right? (p. 160)

With such distant subject matter, and sometimes overly simplified, I doubt if anyone would be interested to finish the book. But, as one who has undergone his bachelor’s education in architecture, I can use the book as a reminder of several forgotten fundaments of the science. On the other hand, as one who still tries to infect interest in this field through education, I highly recommend the book to young students.

Back to the content of this book, as well as the contribution it offers to the body of knowledge, I think being either “intelligent” or “stupid” can be equally sound, as long as it results from a deliberate choice, not indifference. Probably the question presented as my title here is inaccurate. What we need more nowadays is not architecture, debated over for being either intellectual or stupid. What’s more crucial today is an architectural practice that is honest, as there is nothing worse than architecture that lies.***

Farid Rakun is the editor of Karbonjournal.org
Translated by Efiya Nur Fadila