Elective- III – ALLIED ELECTIVE

Fourth Year B. Arch.

A Report

On

“ RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ARCHITECTURE AND POLITICS ”

Submitted by

RAHUL SUHAS KHEUR

Fourth Year B. Arch (Batch ‘A’)

Under the guidance of

Ar. RUPALI BORHADE

Academic Year - 2019-20

Dr. D Y Patil, College of Architecture, Akurdi, Pune.

 Dr. D Y Patil, College of Architecture
Akurdi, Pune.

CERTIFICATE
Academic Year: 2019-20

Name of Student: Rahul Suhas Kheur

Class: Fourth Year Batch ‘B’

College Roll No: 13

Name of Subject: Elective III

This is to certify that Mr. Rahul Suhas Kheur is Allowed for the sessional
assessment to be conducted in Nov-Dec/Apr-May 2019- 20

Internal Examiner College Stamp

Principal

External Examiner Date

 Acknowledgement

(Acknowledgement to be written)
Index

1.0 - Introduction

Topic

Sub- Topic

Aim

Objective

Need / Significance of the topic

Scope & Limitation

2.0 – Data Collection

Background Data

Case- Study 1

Case- Study 2

Case- Study 3

Comparative Analysis

Surveys, Interviews & Observations (If Required)

Conclusion

3.0- Design Proposal

Description of the Proposal

Experts Review
Aim
To discuss about architectural manifestation, methods used in architecture to express aspirations
and connections of urban and architectural hierarchy with the social occurrences and political
context.

Introduction:
Knowing that in comparison with arts, architecture leaves the greatest, most direct and
continuous impact on a man, as it is the essential evidence of human life, many agree that
architecture is Muchmore than utilitarian. It’s aesthetic presence motivates the human emotion
and helps engage consumers to its content using their physical senses to recognize the function.
Broadly illustrating, architecture consists of two dominant aspects: utility and aesthetics. If a
function is constant, variation in form reflects values. In the case of state representation
architecture, these values are expected to be purposely reinforced. Comparing to the functionalist
statement that form follows function, in political architecture it can be assumed that form follows
values.2 Marxist political theorist, Fredric Jameson pointed out - The seeds of the future already
exist within the present and must be conceptually disengaged from it, both through analysis and
through political praxis. Transitions from the historical situations of the former diplomatic
properties, and the current diplomatic presence are also in constant perplexed relationships, and
the architecture that is left behind those relationships can clearly tell its stories.
ARCHITECTURE AS A FORM OF COMMUNICATION

Architecture can be used to transmit messages when the building users invest into building’s
meaning. Levels of such communication have certainly changed during time. Marxist
theoreticians especially pointed at social, political and class connotations of architectural
complexes, understanding them as portrayals of the existing social standing. Many in the field of
architecture believe that architecture can be read as text, that it is a self-contained sign system
with its own grammar. In the modern time, French theoreticians of XVIII century settled that
practice, stating that architecture affects the consumer as if it was talking to him. This process
evolved during the epoch of mass culture in the second half of XIX century, and institutional and
instrumental culmination happened in the countries of totalitarian regimes between the world
wars. Styles became indications of social statuses and symbols of ideologies during the XVIII
century.

BRANDING

The term nation brand was developed by Simon Anholt, describing the attempts of states to build
their reputation. The strategy often involves a symbolic value of products used to emphasize
distinctive characteristics of the nation which are particularly desirable to be seen by the foreign
public, and buildings can surely help attain these goals in many powerful ways. For example, the
Finnish embassy in Washington is a glass, granite and copper box shaped building, sends visitors
a clear message of how Finland should be perceived – modern, high-tech, with quality
workmanship. One glimpse on the building can absorb a message more loudly than millions of
leaflets, tv campaigns or posters.
Comprehension of symbols Shapes and materials of a building are often said to symbolize
values. Glass, for example, signifies transparency (democratic accountability). Greek and Roman
statues remind citizens of democratic ideals from the ancient past. Likewise, Daniel Libeskind
chose the symbolic height of 1776 feet for what used to be called the “Freedom Tower”. The
dispute appears when representations of democratic values are not equally comprehensible.

To arbitrary observer, it needs to be explained how much the tower is high, and why it is so, in
order for him to understand the meaning. Such declarations do little to influence the way a
building might become part of a political experience. More important, a symbolic gesture
towards democracy can fuse with ignorance. German citizens can watch their deputies from
Norman Foster’s glass dome on the re-designed parliament building in Berlin. They are
symbolically elevated above their representatives, yet remain distant spectators who cannot even
hear what is being said in their name. Representing democracy and facilitating democracy are
two different things and what can be called democratic decoration (transparency of the glass) can
actively distract from noticing the actual absence of democratic facilities.
POLITICAL ARCHITECTURE

Architecture is a political act, by nature. It has to do with the relationships between people and
how they decide to change their conditions of living. And architecture is a prime instrument of
making that change because it has to do with building the environment they live in, and the
relationships that exist in that environment.

Financial, as well as material, and intellectual, and emotional resources of a whole group of
people get involved in a particular building project. And any time you get a group, you’re talking
about politics. To me politics means one thing: How do you change your situation? What is the
mechanism by which you change your life? That’s politics. That’s the political question. It’s
about negotiation, or it’s about revolution, or it’s about terrorism, or it’s about careful step-by-
step planning – all of this is political in nature. It’s about how people, when they get together,
agree to change their situation.

Architecture and war are not incompatible. Architecture is war. War is architecture. I am at war
with my time, with history, with all authority that resides in fixed and frightened forms. I am one
of millions who do not fit in, who have no home, no family, no doctrine, no firm place to call my
own, no known beginning or end, no "sacred and primordial site." I declare war on all icons and
finalities, on all histories that would chain me with my own falseness, my own pitiful fears. I
know only moments, and lifetimes that are as moments, and forms that appear with infinite
strength, then "melt into air." I am an architect, a constructor of worlds, a sensualist who
worships the flesh, the melody, a silhouette against the darkening sky. I cannot know your name.
Nor you can know mine. Tomorrow, we begin together the construction of a city.

- Lebbeus Woods
DEMOCRACY AND ARCHITECTURE

Common understanding is that the built environment is bound to be political. Yet from the recent
past, the combination of architecture and politics tends to evoke undemocratic proofs -
totalitarian leaders designing monumental edifices and avenues for eternity. And if authoritarians
consider themselves architects, architects may like to act like authoritarians - they can create
something for the people, but not anything meaningfully seen as of the people nor by the people.
The earliest architectural expression of modern democracy in the USA was inspired by Thomas
Jefferson who adapted the language of the classical order, designed the political architecture of
the modern state translating the rejection of a colonial style in a positive choice. The neoclassical
style became the canon for the new state buildings - the capitols and the courthouses. A
contradiction and failure to project concepts of democracy and revolution into architecture can
be seen on this example. Likewise, the modern architectural movement of the post-war period
was inspired by revolutionary ideas of radical socialism and equal movement empowered by the
USSR. This model also shows a failure to express the modern concept of democracy into an
adequate architectural form, and both of them demonstrate a stylistic canon that dominated and
misled the architectural shaping of a democratic society. Daniel Libeskind added another
possible understanding of the relationship between architecture and democracy - it’s not so much
the process as the architectural and spatial “product” which ultimately has to be democratic. He
talked about creating a space for people, not just corporations. What is a space for people? One
possible answer is - a space where citizens recognize their polity and themselves as subscribing
to democratic values. These thoughts are fated to become more important in current time, there
of remarkable urbanization, new planning and building challenges around the globe.

There is a mention that democratic architecture provides usable area where citizens can gather,
debater protest. What recent political events, like the Arab Spring or social upheaval in Southern
Europe, have made apparent is that in the age of the Internet and social media, physical space is
still of a great importance. Therefore, democratic architecture should produce the space for what
the political scientist John Parkinson called democratic performance, where citizens create their
political messages. For instance, parliaments could have large, empty spaces where the people
can gather to state concerns, but not overly landscaped and pleasant for tourists gathering. As a
political theorist Claude Lefortindicated, the logic of representation in a democracy is different
from a monarchy - the king can represent the territory without remainder, while in a democracy
the place of power remains empty and disputable. So, parliaments never fully represent the
people, but neither do citizens gathered in a public space. The political scientist Philip Manow
noticed that the reflection of representative buildings in a pool symbolizes the fluid,
impermanent nature of democratic representation - neither the assembly nor assembled citizens
ever fully represent the people without remainder. They are fleeting and sometimes they might
disturb each other. It’s by making that dynamic fundamental in democracy, visible and
productive, architecture and urban design can both symbolically represent and facilitate
democracy.
ARCHITECTURE FOR THE RULING BODY

Over the course of the past three thousand years, architecture has been linked to the ruling class
of absolute power, as a discipline and a building activity. Ruling bodies use the built
environment as a tool to exercise their authority, for the physical existence of the built form
allows them to declare their political intention. AsJencks stated - Architecture seems to offer
messages that have mass appeal, that lend themselves to being taken for granted even when they
are not highly conventional, but there are at the same time inventive and heuristic aspects to
these messages. For that matter, it is commonly used as a tool and a symbol of the state, in the
service of politics by a ruling government, mainly in order to propagate political ideologies to the
pluralist society. Arousing nationalistic emotions of the masses, the intention is to maintain
status and position in society. Both the introvert Egyptian pyramids and extrovert buildings as
the Roman Pantheon or Gothic cathedrals are linked to a small elite who use the
communicational power of architecture for imposing their perspectives of the world and people,
and democratic ideas as freedom, equity and fraternity were yet to be discovered. In that context,
Daniel Libeskind’s words about relationship between architecture and a democratic society can
illustrate the universal standing for the most part, architects aren't democratically minded people.
They admire the cities built by kings and generals.
This custom has culminated in Germany at the end of the fourth and beginning of the fifth
decade of the last century, turning architecture into a tool for propagandas and glorification of
country’s foreign and domestic politics. Rustic decoration of ground floors accentuated firmness
000e building appearance, with facades which hid their inner organization.

Upper, richly decorated zones of the exteriors, were frequently used to emphasize the irrelevance
of a small man before the superiors. Such building design, in its reduced form, was applied in
most of the Nazi architecture in XIX and XX century, clearly stating the significance of the
government and its ruler, their sublime rights, chosen by democracy or conquered by force. As a
form of a pageantry, academic architecture was a spectacle, a monument, and this canon referred
to the smaller buildings as well. Static forms and clear visual statements emphasized dominance
of universal on individual, unity over imparity, experience over experiment, sublime over daily,
absolute over relative, legal over revolutionary, institution over a unit, order over anarchy.
Ideological and esthetic motifs in fascist Italy, Japan and SSSR are likewise good examples for
such actions. Succeeding reform of architecture was launched by the representatives of Art-
Nouveau and early functionalism, and influenced official administration edifices used for the
authority’s purposes.

Connection between neo-classical, academic style, political representation of a building and the
new modern approach had been made, marking the time of a mixture of transitional, heterogenic,
semi academic and introductory modern style. The new tradition of monumentality with
prominent totalitarian connotations in the countries where architecture was orchestrated by its
politics was suppressing other designing styles, unlike in democratic countries, where the
creations of new national styles wasn’t restricted, and Art-Deco, modernism and international
styles were simultaneously developing.
INFLUENCE ON POLITICS

In one of his interviews, Lebbeus Woods mentions the influence building environment has on
community. There’s also the possibility that a building project, once complete, will change the
society that built it. It’s the idea that a building could directly catalyze a transformation, so that
the society that finishes building something is not the same society that set out to build it in the
first place. The building changes them. WOODS: I think architecture should not just be
something that follows up on events but be a leader of events. That’s what you’re saying: That
by implementing an architectural action, you actually are making a transformation in the social
fabric and in the political fabric. Architecture becomes an instigator; it becomes an initiator. The
power of an idea, metamorphosed into architecture, the reminder of what is and was, can act as a
tool of control, intimidation, planting ideals into the general public and changing perceptions of
their surroundings. They become adaptive and accustomed to the newly created environment.
This ultimately gives people what can be called a false sense of control. What is also undeniable
is that surrounding is always changeable, and an architecture can continuously alter peoples‟
perspectives, making them question the ones who have placed them and what their motives were
in the first place.
DESIGN AS A POLITICAL ACT

Politics in the form and space As previously stated, architectural form, with its visual and
relational properties, is able to express political authority of the ruling body. Scale may draw
attention to the building’s significance by emphasizing its height, length, width and depth. Built
forms presented as large or tall, vertical in height or horizontally massive compared to human
proportions and its surroundings, with significant visibility and dramatic sculptural effect can
symbolize the authority. There are five most often mentioned reasons for this need:

- Emphasis of dominancy and control

- Evocation of feelings of impressiveness in order to be remembered

- Assertion of identity in the world

- Visual prestige and dignity of the patron

- Projection of influence in society

For example, in Roman Empire, the atmosphere and the buildings directly coincided and were
crucial to how the public would respond to their speeches and messages. Their giant concrete
statements were designed to intimidate and overwhelm, but with community gatherings in mind.
The overwhelming greatness of these buildings, their colossal size and complex design, enforced
the nation’s ideologies. Furthermore, Catherine the Great’s Palace in Russia, designed by
Bartolomeo Rastelli in 1752 for the wife of Emperor Peter I, is an example which projects a play
of façade elements and picturesque decoration, signifying the ruling power of the Russian
monarchy. The façade elements are arranged in hierarchical organization at the roof, body and
base section. Another clear, most recent sample can be Dubai - a city almost non-existent during
the 80s. Through Dubai the strategy of the ruling body via architecture in order to entertain, gain
support for the government’s campaigns and encourage unity of a new-built city can be seen.
Immense architectural achievements are created in an attempt to gain the loyalty of the masses,
leaving the consumption of the energy used to create these monuments as a secondary issue.
Personal ideology of an architect draws incentive from the history of architecture and ideologies
in conjunction with contemporary social, scientific, and artistic courses. Many influential
architects through history have even publicly declared their political orientations - Antonia Sant
Elie, Karl Fridrih Šinkel, Gotfrid Zemper, Šarl Garnije, Antonio Gaudi, Valter Gropijus, Le
Korbizje, Hannes Mayer, Albert Šper, Verner Marh, Oscar Nimayer... However, significant
number of public buildings built according to the state regime during the last two centuries didn’t
have extreme political nor ideological imprints, so it can be concluded that contemporary
architecture does not represent elements of the imperial ideologies in the whole, but rather the
work of the sculptors and architect’s artistic approach. In one of his famous interview, Michel
Foucault stated - Nothing is fundamental ...These are not fundamental phenomena.

There are only reciprocal relations, and the perpetual gaps between intentions in relation to one
another… the architect has no power over me. If I want to tear down or change a house he built
for me, put up new partitions, add a chimney, the architect has no control. So the architect should
be placed in another category-which is not to say that he is not totally foreign to the organization,
the implementation, and all the techniques of power that are exercised in a society. I would say
that one must take him-his mentality, his attitude-into account as well as his projects, in order to
understand a certain number of the techniques of power that are invested in architecture, but he is
not comparable to a doctor, a priest, a psychiatrist, or a prison warden. On the other hand, L.
Altiser perceived that every artistic practice can be possible only through and within it, stating
that the ideology works from and for subjects Nazi architecture in today’s Berlin houses the
offices of a liberal democratic government, at the same time reminding citizens of the need to
reflect on the totalitarian past. In fact, it can be said that, if democracy is ultimately about an
ideal of collective autonomy, then such collective resignification over time is a process that’s
much more important than adding glass or allusions to heroic Founding Fathers in the new
buildings.

There was a time when structures which embodied the sustainable approach and challenged the
boundaries of urban design were hailed as the most revered architectural achievements, and now
they’ve become corporate establishments and other business-oriented buildings. This can be due
to some architects altered perspectives - going from dedicating themselves to environmentally
conscious or utopian design choices that would benefit the urban living space as a whole, to self-
indulgence in an attempt to create potentially branded names. Architectural conformists are
slaves not only to the ideologies of the government institutions, but can join in other centers of
social powers – capital, media, influential non-government institutions, revisionist movement,
criminal groups. Thus, a new un-ideological type of designers – managers appeared. They aim to
catch as many jobs on the market as they can, striving for profit instead of ideological
satisfaction or artistic affirmation. They create a sense of security for themselves, which comes
from monetary assets, and the goal of becoming a starchitect, above all else.
Such a relaxed attitude towards the political status of architecture’s actual, paying clients
overlook that starchitects who today effectively sell their name to authoritarian regimes in
Central Asia (e.g. iconic buildings by Zaha Hadid and Norman Foster in Kazakhstan and
Azerbaijan), directly serve the strategic goals of these regimes. Starchitects reinforce the
legitimacy of governments which allows them a freedom to build, raze and displace, and that can
rarely be had in democracies.
CONCLUSION

Ambitions of authority can easily be ingrained in elements which conceive form and space. Form
has the capacity to arouse strong perceptual interest for its spectators, communicating across
cultures. Hence, it is used to express the authority of the ruling body, which can be done in the
following ways:

- presented in monumental and dominant scale in its physical context.

- using symmetrical composition or hierarchical organization and richly decorated façade with
interplay of color, texture and materials.

- placing edifice in a higher ground level standing as a distinct structure in site.

- portrayed with monumental scale structures producing maximum spatial quality

- arranged in segments, hierarchical manner along an axial path based on linear and fanned
syntax structures, forming a single dominant focal point

As stated by Lefebvre ―“Architectural space” is not simply meant to serve its own purposes, but
is also part of the dominant discourse of power and domination in society.