Differences, Originality and Assimilation: Building Nine...
10
8 Differences, Originality and Assimilation: Building Nine at Panabhandhu School Non Arkaraprasertkul & Reilly Paul Rabitaille 01 An Architect should neither compete in the war of images, nor be concerned with absolute originality. Ongard Satrabhandhu 1 In 1969, the architect Ongard Satrabhandhu was commis- sioned by his family to design Building Nine of the prestigious Panab- handhu Elementary School in Bangkok. Thai by birth but educated at both Cornell and Yale, where architectural study emphasized the latest and greatest design du jour, Ongard chose instead to directly reference Modernist architects such as Le Corbusier. This emulation, though of- ten criticized by Western academics as a form of plagiarism, not only al- lowed Modernism’s entrance into the Thai tradition but also highlights the differences in the definitions of originality and assimilation when viewed through a specific cultural lens. In the case of Thailand, a coun- try with a long history of cultural intermingling as a result of its fre- quently shifting borders, Building Nine was enthusiastically received as an emblem of Western high culture in Thailand and its architect as a fearless appropriator of elements and motifs from various sources as a means of paying homage to the purity of Modernist form. 2 Architecture of Building Nine: Transplantation and Adaptation At its core, Ongard’s Building Nine is essentially a modified version of Le Corbusier’s unbuilt French embassy in Brasilia (1963), treating the original design as a design template or found object that could be adjusted or exaggerated to satisfy the needs of the school and dormitory program [figs.2,3]. Given the limited and awkwardly trian- gular nature of the site, the circular plan of the transplanted Embassy allowed for an aesthetically pleasing site strategy as well as a method for vertical expansion. Ongard re-imagined the L-shaped office spac- es of the Embassy plan as a series of classrooms connected together by double-loaded corridors, which, when echoed without partitions, served as dormitory space at the upper levels of the building. The top floors, which Le Corbusier intended for the office of the French Ambas- sador, were also paralleled in Ongard’s transplantation, which desig- nated those spaces instead for building and academic administration. In addition to these programmatic adjustments, Ongard also expanded the Embassy shading system to protect the entire circumference of the façade from the Bangkok sun and added an exterior fire escape to the east side to satisfy the local building code – an element that would later prove to be the distinguishing feature from the Le Corbusier’s original scheme [figs.1,4]. The found object strategy extended further to the aesthetic modifications of Building Nine, with many of the few modifications having themselves been taken from other well-known modern build- ings, including other works by Le Corbusier himself. The curved ramp of Le Corbusier’s Carpenter Center of the Visual Arts at Harvard Uni- versity [1962; figs.10,11], the mushroom capitals of his Chandigarh As- sembly Hall [1953-63; figs.6,7], and the sculptural water tank on the roof of the Unité d’Habitation in Marseille [1952; figs.14,15] all make an appearance in Building Nine, as do the principles of flat slab con- crete construction (from Le Corbusier’s “five points”) and the average European ceiling height as defined by Le Corbusier’s Le Modulor. And although Ongard is later quoted as saying that Building Nine “owed a lot to Le Corbusier,” the brick circular cutaway to the ground floor di- rectly quotes Louis I. Kahn’s arch at the Indian Institute of Management in Ahmedabad [1962-74; figs.12,13], and the oddly juxtaposed and incongruous auditorium on the top floor is also borrowed from James Stirling’s expressively sloped auditorium at the Engineering Building at the University of Leicester [1963; figs.16,17]. 3 Ongard even takes cues from the postmodernist Robert Venturi by prominently displaying the letters “PB” atop the exterior wall of the auditorium, a billboard- like advertisement in the manner of Venturi Scott Brown’s Seattle Art Museum (1984-91). Salient features of Ongard’s design not found in prior Modern- ist examples were the open ground floor and the particular classroom type. The ground floor of Building Nine was set on columns, seemingly in accordance with Le Corbusier’s use of pilotis. In fact, however, this
Transcript of Differences, Originality and Assimilation: Building Nine...
8
Differences, Originality and Assimilation: Building Nine at Panabhandhu SchoolNon Arkaraprasertkul & Reilly Paul Rabitaille
01
An Architect should neither compete in the war of images, nor be concerned with absolute originality.
OngardSatrabhandhu1
In 1969, the architect Ongard Satrabhandhu was commis-sionedbyhisfamilytodesignBuildingNineoftheprestigiousPanab-handhuElementarySchoolinBangkok.ThaibybirthbuteducatedatbothCornellandYale,wherearchitecturalstudyemphasizedthelatestandgreatestdesigndu jour,OngardchoseinsteadtodirectlyreferenceModernistarchitectssuchasLeCorbusier.Thisemulation,thoughof-tencriticizedbyWesternacademicsasaformofplagiarism,notonlyal-lowedModernism’sentranceintotheThaitraditionbutalsohighlightsthedifferencesinthedefinitionsoforiginalityandassimilationwhenviewedthroughaspecificculturallens.InthecaseofThailand,acoun-try with a long history of cultural intermingling as a result of its fre-quently shifting borders, Building Nine was enthusiastically receivedasanemblemofWesternhighcultureinThailandanditsarchitectasafearlessappropriatorofelementsandmotifsfromvarioussourcesasameansofpayinghomagetothepurityofModernistform.2
Architecture of Building Nine: Transplantation and Adaptation
At its core, Ongard’s Building Nine is essentially a modifiedversion of Le Corbusier’s unbuilt French embassy in Brasilia (1963),treating the original design as a design template or found object thatcouldbeadjustedorexaggeratedtosatisfytheneedsoftheschoolanddormitoryprogram[figs.2,3].Giventhelimitedandawkwardlytrian-gularnatureofthesite,thecircularplanofthetransplantedEmbassyallowedforanaestheticallypleasingsitestrategyaswellasamethodfor vertical expansion. Ongard re-imagined the L-shaped office spac-es of the Embassy plan as a series of classrooms connected togetherby double-loaded corridors, which, when echoed without partitions,servedasdormitoryspaceattheupperlevelsofthebuilding.Thetopfloors,whichLeCorbusierintendedfortheofficeoftheFrenchAmbas-sador,werealsoparalleled inOngard’stransplantation,whichdesig-
natedthosespacesinsteadforbuildingandacademicadministration.Inadditiontotheseprogrammaticadjustments,OngardalsoexpandedtheEmbassyshadingsystemtoprotecttheentirecircumferenceofthefaçadefromtheBangkoksunandaddedanexteriorfireescapetotheeastsidetosatisfythelocalbuildingcode–anelementthatwouldlaterprovetobethedistinguishingfeaturefromtheLeCorbusier’soriginalscheme[figs.1,4].
The found object strategy extended further to the aestheticmodifications of Building Nine, with many of the few modificationshaving themselves been taken from other well-known modern build-ings,includingotherworksbyLeCorbusierhimself.ThecurvedrampofLeCorbusier’sCarpenterCenteroftheVisualArtsatHarvardUni-versity[1962;figs.10,11],themushroomcapitalsofhisChandigarhAs-sembly Hall [1953-63; figs.6,7], and the sculptural water tank on theroofoftheUnitéd’HabitationinMarseille[1952;figs.14,15]allmakean appearance in Building Nine, as do the principles of flat slab con-creteconstruction(fromLeCorbusier’s“fivepoints”)andtheaverageEuropeanceilingheightasdefinedbyLeCorbusier’sLe Modulor.AndalthoughOngardislaterquotedassayingthatBuildingNine“owedalottoLeCorbusier,”thebrickcircularcutawaytothegroundfloordi-rectlyquotesLouisI.Kahn’sarchattheIndianInstituteofManagementin Ahmedabad [1962-74; figs.12,13], and the oddly juxtaposed andincongruousauditoriumonthetopfloorisalsoborrowedfromJamesStirling’s expressively sloped auditorium at the Engineering Buildingat the University of Leicester [1963; figs.16,17].3 Ongard even takescuesfromthepostmodernistRobertVenturibyprominentlydisplayingthe letters“PB”atoptheexteriorwallof theauditorium,abillboard-likeadvertisementinthemannerofVenturiScottBrown’sSeattleArtMuseum(1984-91).
SalientfeaturesofOngard’sdesignnotfoundinpriorModern-istexamplesweretheopengroundfloorandtheparticularclassroomtype.ThegroundfloorofBuildingNinewassetoncolumns,seeminglyinaccordancewithLeCorbusier’suseofpilotis.Infact,however,this
9
0101:
Exp
ande
dEm
bass
ysh
adin
gsy
stem
,Sat
abha
ndhu
’sB
uild
ing
9
10
03
02:
Pla
nof
Sat
abha
ndhu
’sB
uild
ing
9,0
3:M
odel
ofL
eC
orbu
sier
’sF
renc
hEm
bass
yin
Bra
silia
,196
4
02
11decisionrelatesmoretothetraditionsofthevernacularThaihouse;ratherthanusingthegroundfloor’sopen-nesssolelyforthesanitaryreasonsthatCorbusierprescribed,4Ongardopenedtheentirespacefornaturalindirectlighting,ventilation,andsocialactivities–traditionsinherentinThaiculture.5Itsmulti-purposepro-gramwasenrichedbytheintegrationofstairs,benchesandtiltedwallstoencourageactiveuse,appealingtotheThaipreferenceforoutdoorpublicspaces.Whenconfiguringtheclassroomarrangement,OngardofferedanalternativetotheconventionalThaischooldesignofsingle-loadedcorridorsofclassroomsterminatinginadministration.Byseparatingtheclassroomfromthefacultyarea,BuildingNinemodifiedthetraditionalThaistudent-teacherrelationshiptoencouragemoreself-disciplineamongthestudentbody.Finally,Ongard’sre-gionalizedalterationsextendedtothelandscape,asheeschewedLeCorbusier’suseofmassiveconcreteplazas(foundatChandigarhandelsewhere)infavoroftree-linedpublicspacesthatcreatedapleasantstudentatmo-spherewhileloweringtheambienttemperature.6
Polarized Reception: West vs. East
Asaradicalbreakfromtheemphasison“originality”taughtbyWesternschools,Ongard’sBuildingNinewaspannedbyWesternarchitecturalcriticsoftheday,whoreferredtotheexcessivetransplantationasdemonstrativeofan“immatureappreciationofModernism.”7Nevertheless,thenewbuildingwasextremelywell-receivedinitsnativeThailand,wherecriticsperceiveditasasocio-culturalphenomenon:aconjunctionofModernarchitectureandthelocalcontext.ArchitectureinThailandalreadyhadastronghistoryofculturaladoptionandassimilation,dueinnosmallparttotheshiftingbordersandmultipleculturesthathavebeenhis-toricallyendemictotheSiamarea;thus,thenatureoftheThaireactionwashardlyunusual.TheGrandPalaceatBangkokfeaturesseveralexamplesofarchitecturalimportation,includingthemodelofAngkorWatcom-missionedshortlyaftertheSiameseoccupationofCambodia[fig.9],andthehybridizedChakriMahaPrasatThroneHalldesignedin1876[fig.8].TheThroneHall,withitsjuxtapositionofaThairoofonBaroqueimperialarchitecture,isofparticularimportanceinrelationtoBuildingNine,sinceitwasthefirstindicationofWesterninfluenceonThaiculture.8
Like the Angkor Wat model and the Throne Hall, the popular interpretation of Building Nine’stransplantationandimitationwasshapedlargelybythepowerofsocialimage.KingRamaIVcommissionedthemodelinordertoillustratetotheSiamesepeoplethevastculturalwealthoftheirempire.9Hissuccessor,RamaV,commissionedtheThronehalltosymbolicallyreinforcethecountry’smodernizationbyrequiringaWestern-styleclassicalrevival.10Asaresult,theKhmerandBaroquestylesofthemodelandhallbothmadetheirwayintotheThaiarchitecturaltradition.BuildingNine,althoughnotagovernmentalbuildingperse,heldsimilarprestigeduetoitsassociationwiththeeliteandroyally-sponsoredPanabhandhuSchool.11Thus,thebuilding’swidespreadacceptancesimilarlyallowedModernismtoarriveinThailand.
OngardSatabhandhu’sBuilding9atPanabhandhuSchool,1969
Exteriorfireescapeoneastsideofbuilding,Satabhandhu’sBuilding9
05 05
Mushroomcapitals,Satabhandhu’sBuilding9Mushroomcapitals,LeCorbusier’sChandigarhAssemblyHall,1961
04 06 07
12
08
ChakriMahaPrasatThroneHallatBangkok’sGrandPalace,2008
13
ModelofAngkorWatatBangkok’sGrandPalace,2008
09
14 What is Original, Anyway?
TheconstructionofBuildingNineemphasizesthesubjectivenatureoforiginalityinthecontextofadaptationorimitation.Westernacademia’snegativeattitudetowardsOn-gard’semulationreflectsaculturethatframes“originality”asanactofconceptualgeneration.InThailand-adevelopingcountrywithahistoryofculturalconquestandassimilation-theappreciationofformanditssocialandpoliticalramificationsisconsiderablymoreimportant;“originality,”then,isdetermineddirectlybyarchitecture’ssuccessfuladaptationtoThaisoil.Generallyunconcernedwiththedifferencebetween“authenticWest”and“imitatedWest”,thesuccessofBuildingNinecomesfromthelimitedmovesOngardtookinmakingLeCorbus-ier’sEmbassydesignappropriateforuseasanacademicbuildinginthemiddleofBangkok.His sensitive modifications - the exaggerated shading system, the double loaded corridors,andthemodifiedopengroundfloor,allofwhichsatisfythephysicalneedsoftheThai life-style-areonlyimportantinsofarastheyremainemulationsofotherModernistmotifs,whilehis inclusionofModernandPostmodernelementsfromotherbuildingshelptoreinforceaprogressive image of the Thai state and its people. So although the means of Modernism’sentranceintoThailandchallengedcertainWesternattitudesvis-à-visarchitecture,theper-ceptionofthebuilding’snuancesandslightvariationssoftenedwiththesocialandculturalcontext.BuildingNinebecomesaclearmanifestationofaculturalconjunctioninthecontextof Modernism, an easy dialogue between architecture and the local culture, mirroring theintroductionofThaiColonialismastheroyalarchitecturalstyleonehundredyearsbefore.
WhatcomesoutoftheBuildingNinenarrativeisthequestionofhowfarmustonemovefromtheoriginaltemplateinordertobeconsidered“original”.BetweenWesternandThaiacademia,theperceptualdifference–atleastintermsofform–isconsiderable.However,at its heart, the construction of Building Nine reveals the nature of originality as culturallysubjective.IsBuildingNineplagiarized?Largely,yes.ButisBuildingNineoriginal…?
Entranceramp,LeCorbusier’sCarpenterCenterofVisualArtsatHarvardUniversity,2005
Brickcircularcutaway,Satabhandhu’sBuilding9
Brickcircularcutaway,LouisKahn’sIndianInstituteofManagementinAhmedabad,1988
Entranceramp,Satabhandhu’sBuilding9
10 11 1312
15Endnotes
1.OngardSatabhandhu,citedinJohnHoskin,Bangkok by Design(Bangkok:PostBooks,1995),118.
2.Theargumentofthispaperismainlydrawnfromoneexhaustiveaccountofthisimportantwork.OneofthemisOngard’sundergraduatethesisatCornellUniversity:OngatSattraphan,“PanaBhanduSchoolRedevelopment,Bangkok,Thailand”(M.ArchThesis,CornellUniversity,1965).ThisthesiswasdonetheundersupervisionofProfessorColinRowe.
3.Hoskin,Bangkok,119.
4. Almanach d’Architecture Moderne(LeseditionsG.Cres,Paris,1926).
5.TheliftingofthetraditionalThaihouseismainlyforanamphibiousfunction:avoidingtheconstantfloodandhumidity,providingsecurityfromwildanimals,andcreat-ingasupplementarylivingareaunderthehouse.Italsoactsasamulti-purposeareaforstoringgoods,engagingincottageindustries,andshelteringboatsduringtherainyseason.HorayangkuragivesaninterestingcomparisontothedesignstrategyoftheModernmaster:thestiltfeatureinspiresanalogousarchitectonicexpressionofLeCorbusierwithregardtomanifestingModernisminhisfive-pointmanifesto.SeeVimolsiddhiHorayangkura,“TheArchitectureofThailand,ChangeAmidContinuity:TheNewChallenge”,Transforming Tradition in Architecture in ASEAN country,editedbyJonLim(Singapore:UniquePress,2001),234;andSumetJumsai,Naga: Cultural Origins in Siam and the West Pacific(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,1988),86-7.
6.“Educationandcultureweremeansofsocialcontrol.”PanabhandhuSchoolwasoneofthefirstboardingschoolsinthecountry.Thefoundersoftheschoolhadavisionofabettereducationthatincludedhealthiness,discipline,andcommunity;theownersofthisprivateschoolbelievedthatthiscouldonlybeachievedusingthelearningenvironmentofaboardingschool.Whereasmostschoolswerepublic,fundedbygovernment,PanabhandhuSchoolwasatotallyprivateinstitution(thenameoftheschoolwasamixingofthetwofounders’lastnames:PananondaandSatabhandhu).Thisindependenceallowedtheleadersoftheschooltouseanyteachingstylestheysawbestforthestudents.SeeEdwardN.Saveth,“EducationofanElite”,History of Education Quarterly,vol.28,no.3(1988),367-86.
7.VimolsiddhiHorayangkuracategorizedthisas“towardsModernityinarchitecturethroughimitation.”Healsoaddedhisskepticisminusinganextremetermplagiarismsincetherewasaparticularpositiveinprovokingtheunderstandingoftheculturaltransformation,thushecompromisesbydescribingitasa“directassimilation.”SeeHorayangkura,“TheArchitectureofThailand”,248-9.
8.MoreincisivestudiesofwhatindicatesWesterninfluenceonThaiculturecanbefoundinNonArkaraprasertkul,“AnUnexpectedIntroductionofModernArchitectureinThailand”,Examining Cultural Constructions,editedbyRobertCowherd(Cambridge,MA:HTC/AKPIA,MassachusettsInstituteofTechnology,2006).
9.Thaisexperiencedthefirstimageof“Modernism”fromthemonumentsoftheearlytwentiethcentury.ThemonumentsthemselveswerenotculturalartifactsofThaiculture,butwere“civicelements”throughwhichmeaningwasderivedfromtheprecedentintheWesternworld,likeNapoleon’sarchandtheWashingtonMonument.SeeMichaelR.Rhum,“Modernityand‘Tradition’in‘Thailand’”,Modern Asian Studies,no.30,vol.2(2006),338-41.
10.JohnClunish,aBritisharchitect,wascommissionedtodesigntheChakri Maha PrasatThroneHall(1876-82)byKingMahaChulalongkorn.ItwasoriginallydesignedinRenaissancestylewiththreedomesonthetop.Thedesignoftheroof,however,waschangedbecauseSomdetChaoPhrayaBoromMahaSisuriyawong,whowasanimportantfigureinthecountry’s“CulturalIdentity”movement,wasconcernedabouttheimageofthepalace;hesuggestedthatitshouldstillbemainlycharacterizedasatraditionalThaistylebuilding.Therefore,hesuggestedthealterationoftheroof,fromthedomestoKrueng Yord,Thai-styledecoratepitchroofs.TheThroneHall,thus,demonstratesthisdualityasa“crashoftwodifferentcultures”.Thefactthatnoone,Thaiorforeigner,questionsthecultural“authenticity”oftheThroneHallseemstoindicatethesuccessfulappropriationofWesternstylearchitecturethentransformingitinto“modern”Thaiarchitecturestyle.SeeHorayangkura,“TheArchitectureofThailand”,237.
11.NonArkaraprasertkul,“ASuddenAppearanceofModernisminThailand,” in“KeepingUp-ModernThaiArchitecture1967-1987,”Exhibition Catalog (Bangkok:ThailandCreative&DesignCenter[TCDC],2008).
Imagecredits:Fig.3courtesyofPolEsteve,MontsePardo,JuditUrgelles/UniversitatPolitècnicadeCatalunya.Fig.5reprintedwithpermissionfromThailandCreativeandDesignCenter(TCDC),Bangkok.Fig.2courtesyofOngardSatrabhandhu.Figs.1,4,7,11,13,15and17courtesyofPolnonPrapanon,KarmchetKarmna,TodsaponYuttasak,andPreechaMahirun.Fig.10courtesyofNonArkaraprasertkul.Fig.6courtesyofAgaKhanVisualArchive,MIT.Fig.12courtesyofAlfredDeCosta.Fig.16courtesyofRotchVisualCollections,MIT.Figs.8-9courtesyofMingYe.
Sculpturalwatertankontheroof,LeCorbusier’sUnitéd’HabitationinMarseille,1952
Sculpturalwatertankontheroof,Satabhandhu’sBuilding9 Slopedauditorium,JamesStirling’sEngineeringBuildingattheUniversityofLeicester,1959
Slopedauditorium,Satabhandhu’sBuilding9
14 15 16 17
Mas
sach
uset
ts In
stitu
te o
f Tec
hnol
ogy
Dep
artm
ent
of A
rchi
tect
ure,
Roo
m 7
-337
77 M
assa
chus
etts
Ave
nue
Cam
brid
ge, M
A 0
2139
Non
-Pro
fit O
rgan
izat
ion
US
Post
age
Paid
Cam
brid
ge, M
APe
rmit
No.
: 540
16
thresholds 35differen
ce
difference
thresholdsdifference
35
Contributors
Ben Aranda / Non Arkaraprasertkul / Anne-Marie Armstrong / Elizabeth Bishop / Cody Davis / Lara Davis / Sarah Dunbar / Elijah Huge / Mariana Ibanez / Mark Jarzombek / Caroline A. Jones / Simon Kim / Melissa Lo / Alexander Maymind / John McMorrough / Meredith Miller / Nikki Moore / Desiree Palmen / Nicola Pezolet / Reilly Paul Rabitaille / Scott Ruff / Fei Wang / J. Meejin Yoon / James D. Graham, editor
Special Thanks to:Mark Jarzombek for his continual guidance and advocacy. Tanja Neubert for her patience and her graphical sensibilities. Christopher Guignon for his assistance and solidarity. Chienchuan Chen, Sarah Hirschman, Anneka Lenssen, Melissa Lo, Meredith Miller, Karin Oen, Sadia Shirazi, and Winnie Wong for their feedback. Michael Ames, Kathaleen Brearly, Rebecca Chamberlain, Yung Ho Chang, Anne Deveau, Caroline Jones, Minerva Tirado, and Jack Valleli for their support of thresholds.
Editorial Policythresholds is published biannually in the spring and fall by the Department of Architecture at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Opinions in thresholds are those of the authors alone and do not represent the views of the editors, the Department of Architecture, nor MIT.
No part of thresholds may be copied or distributed without written authorization.
CorrespondenceThresholdsMassachusetts Institute of TechnologyDepartment of Architecture, Room 7-33777 Massachusetts AvenueCambridge, MA 02139
[email protected]/thresholds
Copyright 2009ISSN 1091-711XPSB 08.09.0647
Printed by Puritan Press, Hollis, NHText set in Boton and LacunaDesigned by Tanja Neubert, www.defleck.deCover Image: Couple on Park Bench, Desiree Palmen, 2001, www.desireepalmen.nl
Editor: James D. Graham / Graphic Designer: Tanja Neubert / Managing Editor: Christopher Guignon / Advisory Board: Mark Jarzombek, chair / Stanford Anderson / Dennis Adams / Martin Bressani / Jean-Louis Cohen / Arindam Dutta / Diane Ghirardo / Ellen Dunham-Jones / Robert Haywood / Hassan- Uddin Khan / Rodolphe el-Khoury / Leo Marx / Mary McLeod / Ikem Okoye / Vikram Prakash / Kazys Varnelis / Cherie Wendelken / Gwendolyn Wright / J. Meejin Yoon / Patrons: James Ackerman / Irman Ahmed / Mark and Elaine Beck / Tom Beischer / Yung Ho Chang / Robert F. Drum / Gail Fenske / Liminal Projects, Inc. / R.T. Freebaim-Smith / Nancy Stieber / Robert Alexander Gonzales / Jorge Otero-Pailos / Annie Pedret / Vikram Prakash / Joseph M. Diry / Richard Skendzel / Cherie Wendelken
Board & Patrons
![*56 ]; t 7PM /P t /PWFNCFS t 181-194 Le Corbusier’s ...](https://static.fdocuments.net/doc/165x107/61c3e7a85249316406296d6c/56-t-7pm-p-t-pwfncfs-t-181-194-le-corbusiers-.jpg)
