Time's Arrows: Spaces of the Past/ Greig Crysler /2012

Crysler's introduction to the section "History/Memory/Tradition" in Sage Handbook of Architectural History argues that discussions of time and space are inseparable and any discussion of time is also a discussion of space. He explores the threads connecting the terms history, memory, tradition to architecture, even as they all appear to have distinct meanings when looked in isolation.

In the physical sciences, the 'arrow of time' refers to the notion that time moves in linear direction, and that the past is distinct and different from the future. What has happened in the past is understood to be irrevocable and unchangeable. In opposition to this, Crysler's essay examines the theory of 'spatial turn' that has emerged in the social sciences and humanities in the last three decades that "denaturalizes time by examining it as a social construction" (290). This theory argues that time and space have to be understood together, and any study of the past is simultaneously a study of imagined spaces. Crysler argues that time as it registers in social process is shaped by the production, organization, and use of space. In this time-space discussion he visualizes four types of 'timezones' -- multiple and contradictory temporalities emerging from the past.

1. Accelerated Time: 

 1. World City Theorists' Friedman and Sassen: Center and Periphery model/ Command and Control model : As time is moving faster/ is accelerated with globalization (shrinking of the globe) through speedy data transmission, rapid capital/ material/human movement and so on, there is an expansion or reorganization of space through displacement/ gentrification etc.
2. Lefebvre's Production of Space: Spatialization of social theory - social theory of urban society which was looked only through Marxist theory of economic functions was changed by Lefebvre's discourse on space.
3. Edward Soja: Lefebvrian discourse of space challenged 19th century historicism which presented space as a result of evolutionary time (space independently changes with time) or ignored it altogether. Soja argues that time and space are reciprocative -- as space is shaped by capitalism (economy), economy in turn is shaped by urban space.
4. David Harvey: Space is a social process. It is an ideological representation which can influence social change and in turn perception of time.

Copies without origin: When copies (simulations) are made of the past -- through heritage preservations and simulated reconstructions -- time dissolves into a flux where past can be uprooted, deterritorialized, and commodified on a global scale. History disappears or gets obscured through the spectacular visibility of the past -- 'culture of disappearance'.
In theme parks (simulated themed environments) the future dissolves into the present in a degenerate (dilute?) form. Sorkin's example of Disneyland is an example of collapsing of time in space where it becomes impossible to imagine a utopic future outside of these environs.
On an urban scale this can be seen in Rem Koolhas's "futuristic" vision of third world cities like Lagos, Hong Kong, Singapore where third world becomes not something that the first world has to progress from but rather progress towards.

1. Baudrillard (Hyperrealist): capitalist production moved from producing things of use value to exchange value. "Mirror of Production": production of a pervasive and constantly shifting spectacle of consumption that is based on economics of desire that is managed by marketing, advertising experts.
2. Manfredo Tafuri: Production of architecture not for its use value in communication but for its visual currency and consumer capital.


3. Remembered Time: 

As time is accelerating, history is disappearing, and memory is multiplying. There is an exponential growth of memory industry through museums, archives, memory studies etc. as a response to faltering legitimacy of progressive history. Memory is a social construction.

1. Pierre Nora: As bounded communities of collective memory disappear, "sites of memory" are needed to preserve the past from being destructed by history.
2. Alois Riegl (Modern Cult of Monuments): Past is made visible as "historical values" through determinations of the present.
3. Maurice Halbwachs: Memory is not intrinsic or given, but rather produced in shared social spaces.

Built environments help in activating, sustaining and modifying memory in three ways:
First, memory production intensifies in periods of rapid social change and is dependent upon on temporality of modernization.
Second, memory is created through specific social situations in the present and are key in establishing power relations.
Third, memory is not discovered by scholars/analysts but rather they are inherently present in artifacts who significance is produced through shared or contested processes.

Recollecting and articulating of memory happens through institutionalized practices often embedded in power struggles between contesting agencies. In such power struggles, memory/artifact is frozen at an opportune moment, and prevented from degenerating over time. "Preservation is not only about stopping time, but also claiming time". The minimum age to be claimed as 'heritage' is decreasing. As history is becoming more accessible, 19th century periodization of history becomes moot and the historic past is no longer the metaphorical foreign country. i.e. preservationists can bring to life the historic past.

Mrinalini Rajagopalan argues, preservation is not a technical process but a social process, as the decision of what has to be preserved precedes how it is done. In Colonial times, the preservations in the colonies was an orientalist representation of indigenous history, culture, and architecture. She argues, waves of modernization trough postcolonial nationalism, globalization have created different ideas of what has to be preserved. Preservation is a result of interchanges between bureaucracies, academia, legalities, and changing epistemologies of architectural history. Preservation becomes a tool to suspend artifacts in time, so that it becomes an origin for future myths in the discourse of market and nation.

Interrogating Difference: Postcolonial Perspectives in Architecture and Urbanism / Jyoti Hosagrahar / 2012

Hosagrahar in her survey article on the Postcolonial thought interrogates changing perspectives on architecture and urbanism in the colonized world. Her arguing of intellectual decolonization is reminiscent of Chatterjee's challenging question -- should even the thoughts of the colonial world remain colonized forever? She introduces the emergence of postcolonial thought as a rebellion to "dominance of universalizing paradigms and simplistic categorizations in conventional scholarship in architecture and urbanism focused on Western Europe and North America. Simply, it is thinking about the "relationship  between a dominant power and its subjects under colonialism."

The essay begins with a discussion of key ideas and concepts in postcolonial theory and the influence of decades of postcolonial critiques on architecture and urbanism.
Frantz Fanon's "The Wretched of Earth" (1961) that critiqued French colonization of Algeria, denounced psychopathology of colonialism and forewarned about the violence in the aftermath of independence struggles. It inspired anti-colonial liberation movements for decades
Edward Said's "Orientalism" (1978) was a literary analysis of the creation of the 'Orient', and discussed learned Orientalists who disdained indigenous scholars and bestowed authority to historical texts by European scholars. Said showed that identity was culturally constructed and paved way for architectural historians to study buildings and the urban fabric as cultural documents that could reveal hidden biases.
Foucalt's seminal works on Power, Knowledge, and Culture presented the networks of power that could dominate without the assertion of physical force, and led to new ways of postcolonial thinking where architecture was seen as tool of power.
The Subaltern Group started in 1980's and spearheaded by Ranajit Guha, Gyan Pandey, Partha Chaterjee, Gayatri Spivak opened a new window to colonial history by proposing that history should be seen from below. They argued that the non-elites (peasants in India) were the agents who had brought radical socio-economic changes in the colonies, and the experiences of these marginalized people opens a new window to national history. Hosagrahar suggests that the works of Subaltern group has influenced Architetcure and Urbanism in two ways: One, by legitimizing the history from margins, and second, by recognizing the power of even non-elites in controlling and shaping the built environment.
She also discusses the commentaries of Henry Louis Gates and Kwame Appaiah's on black culture and African-ness, Hosgargar argues, that brought an awareness of the subjectivities in aesthetic appreciation based on race.
Finally, key works of Homi Bhabha, Arjun Appadurai, and Dipesh Chakrabarty have been instrumental in introducing the hybridity between the east- west, modern- traditional, and have provided complex readings of modernity and globalization. Dipesh. C. in Provincializing Europe (2007) presents an idea of Europe, not as the center of humankind and its scholarship, but as a "mythical site of the original modern."

Postcolonial theory, Hosagrahar writes, "has informed thinking about buildings and urban space as symbolic cultural landscapes that are historically constituted, culturally constructed, political artifacts whose forms are dynamic and meanings constantly negotiated."

The second part traces the historiography of postcolonial architecture and urbanism which contests the european architectural canon as the 'original' history of architecture. As Gwen Wright's book on French Urbanism and Thomas Metcalf's work on Imperial India demonstrate, even seemingly antagonistic projects of architecture in the colony were only built to promote tourism and garner public support (French Algeria), or as a symbolic representation of power that articulated the cultural difference (India). Further, Anthony King's Bungalow and Hosagrahar's work on 19th century Delhi showcase the making of a new 'hybrid culture' that is neither the colonizer's nor from the colony. 

Citing the early works on architectural history which precluded non-western architecture from the canon, she calls for a change in the teaching of history in European and American universities  to include indigenous architecture as a part of the larger canon. 

The third section discusses the creation of national identity through architecture. Hosagrahar identifies three ways in which architecture is used for nation building: One, by rejecting everything that was western and getting inspiration from the traditional-vernacular architecture of the region (Turkey), second, to embrace modernity by having European architects design new capitals (Chandigarh, Dhaka), and third, where changing nationalist agendas results in a diverse range of architecture and hence constructing a diverse national identity. After a brief discussion on who decides what to preserve as cultural identity through architecture, and the effects of globalization on postcolonial thought, the final section presents four elements that are crucial in postcolonial designing in the margins - in-depth knowledge of the site, regional emphasis, being socially responsible and sustainable.

In conclusion, Hosagrahar argues that postcolonial thought has a transformative effect on architecture and urbanism by challenging the paradigms if modernism which are accepted to be universal, second, they urge architectural historians to think of the various alternative narratives to the traditional historical canon of architecture and alert us about the marginalized vernacular histories from the colonies.

Beyond Postcolonialism: New directions for the history of non-western architecture / Kathleen James Chakraborty/ 2013

Kathleen James Chakraborty's comparative literature study calls attention to new scholarship on non-western modernism. While the first part is a historiographic survey of scholarship on colonial and post colonial architecture from the non-western countries, the second part prescribes what new directions this emerging scholarship can lead into.

She traces the historiography of colonial and postcolonial architecture, beginning with the 1980's books on Indian colonial architecture which worked with the lens of postmodern classicism and the writings of Said, Hobsbawm, and Foucault, to turn of the century "Berkeley School" of non-western studies. She outlines the changing trajectory of postmodern/postcolonial studies as they changed from stylistic study of buildings to the scale of cities and the changing place of buildings in it (influenced by Stuart Hall and Henry Lefebvre). She writes that in 1980's when scholarship on African and Asian colonial architecture first emerged, there was tension in the literature because the relationship of architecture to power had been undeniable shown by Said and Foucault. (Metcalf's 1989 book on IndoSaracenic architecture showed the style as a tool to solidify political power rather than as being respectful of indigenous traditions). In tracing the emergence of scholarship on colonial architecture she identifies the early graduate seminars taught by Renata Holod, Bozdogan, and Anthony King as pioneering which was later bolstered by the emergence of a 'Berkeley School' which was spearheaded by Norma Evenson and Spiro Kostof. At Berkeley, modern non-western architecture occupied center stage as Paul Rabinow and Gwen Wright authored important books on French Urbanism. Supported by its faculty - Nezar Alsayyad, Dell Upton, and Kathleen Chakraborty herself, a string of monographs on 19th-20th century urbanism in non-western world was published by students. The work of those trained at Berkeley, Chakraborty writes, "focussed not on issues of architectural style or its relation to identity but instead on space and the social processes through which it was constituted." She argues that even as the relationship between modernism and social progress is debatable, it is certain that iconic examples of modern architecture has been widely distributed around the world and their study marks the new direction for postmodern studies in architecture.

Four topics that Chakraborty identifies as the most promising in this new direction are 1)the study of  the architecture of empire 2) recognizing the periphery as the place where innovations are occurring 3) analyzing architecture as the locus of cultural memory, and 4) studying the ways in which immigrants are changing the fabric of the western world. The study of architecture in Empire and its colonies is important to understand the question of exporting of modernity, and the questions of who wanted modernity and why. She argues that it also helps in the dissolution of the presumption that all new ideas come from Europe or European architects. Study of migration of both people and ideas is necessary to uncover the ideas and perspectives that have been taken to western countries by European architects working in the 'other world' (Corbusier's inspiration from Mughal palace pavilion and Lois Kahn's philosophy on bricks). Chakraborty suggests that 'memory studies' is one of the most rapidly growing areas of enquiry in humanities. The role of buildings and cities in shaping the ways we understand the past, and how the buildings' own changing role can reflect the changes in the society are key questions.

In concluding James-Chakroborty asks several questions which remain unanswered in the realm of architectural history, and whose answers can change our understanding of cities in colonial and postcolonial times.
"New knowledge about the people who commissioned, designed, constructed, inhabited and viewed colonial and postcolonial buildings has implications for the humanities and the social sciences as a whole, as it overturns preconceptions by no means unique to architectural historians. What does it mean if some of the most potent symbols of modernization created during the twentieth century sunk deeper roots in Calcutta and Cairo than in the suburbs of Chicago and even possibly Copenhagen? Who was the modern movement really for and why? Did it more effectively express the aspirations of working class Europeans for political empowerment or middle class Indians and Egyptians for economic progress? Was it above all the purview of a small cluster of immensely talented designers intensely aware of what each other were doing or is it the property as well of relatively unskilled labor and of housewives? And is it a living tradition, or is it time for it to be consigned to history as the tree of architecture gains a new crown in response to different concerns, such as sustainability."