Syith Mukhtar: So what is “Architeture”? #4. Adhrah Azaman *overanalytical-eye twitches*

Liyana Hasnan: I have a question about #20 on AA and The Bar-tlett being top school in the world. Are these schools what UiTM students aspire UiTM to be like? What is “so best” about these schools, if I may ask. (I have no qualms that they are good schools, but I would like to know what some UiTM students think of these schools). 2013 top school in the world is Sci-Arc, followed by AA and MIT. - Muhammad Shamin Bin Sahrum

Muhammad Shamin Bin Sahrum: Liyana Hasnan, the argue on top schools is debatable, and this was purely a one hour rant then print by us, so we didnt really put much thought on it haha! but as far as what uitm students think, it’s hal half i guess, some feel (and i too to a degree) believe that AA n Bartlett is less focused on buildings itself and more into the ideas surrounding the built environment. Though interesting, some ppl consider less pragmatic. There are those who are interest-ed, and there are those that prefer a more experimental school (or exploration of thoughts) than uitm but still a pragmatic approcah to buildings, so the situation among students is half-half i reckon. Thanks for asking! ; p

Liyana Hasnan; SciArc too can be bundled in together with AA and The Bartlett. Top school was not an issue. And I know your position. And Bartlett IS a radical school (AA too under Alvin Boyarsky). I would like to hear other students’ opinion. True when doing thesis, one must design buildings. Are experi-mental only defined through sci-fi dystopian projects? Can one be experimental and still create a design still attached to contemporary reality? Who should create that experimental environment - students or professors? Are boxes boring, free-form not? - haha, see I am asking question (which you encour-

Muhammad Shamin Bin Sahrum; haha! tula i guess the caption boxes to doesnt really mean a box per se, dia mcm just think out of the box more or so. And were not judging the people who design boxes, i mean bnyk je great architects who design in terms of the cartesian plane and boxes haha, it’s just that if you did design a box, was it really because that was the best option of the design? or did u make it for the sake of it, that kind of thing. And Sci-Arc! definitely top school, i’d love to go to Sci Arc more than Bartlett or AA actually haha, am even thinking of applying ; p I use to think that these top british schools are the best, they are the best in respect to nourishing and pushing the field, but i guess it’s like a role that everyone has to have. Some people’s role is to build, and some people’s role is to educate. And AA n Bartlett is to educate. I think both is equally important. Personally i feel that there has to be a connection back to building x kisah how far off u think or experiment. Like it has to be, to some degree, viable to be executed in reality. Like we can’t all be dreaming of dystopian world or no one would actually do design that matters towards society. So dia mcm ying-yang la, balance hukum alam yg Tuhan da tetapkan. Semua mesti ad kesederhanaan ; ) My two cents on it - Liyana Hasnan

Muhammad Shamin Bin Sahrum: Merg Far D Reidel apa opinion hang ; ) ? ingin dgr pendapat saudara dr SI juga jika saudara sudi

Merg Far D Reidel: Ermm ermm ermm. My concern’s why must use English as medium to convey our idea? Maksud aku, mesti ke mewajibkan pelajar fasih untuk mempersembahkan idea mereka tu dalam bahasa Inggeris? Adakah kedudukan bahasa lain itu ren-dah? Kadang2 kita terlalu menekankan penggunaan bahasa lebih daripada menekankan kebolehan untuk menterjemahkan idea kita tu.

Kita kadang2 terlupa bahasa pun mainkan peranan dalam memben-tuk keunikan senibina. Kenapa? Dalam kita sibuk nak mempro-mosikan kepelbagaian dalam senibina ni tapi kita menghadkan kaedah penyampaian mesti dalam satu bahasa je. Sayang. Sebab kadang2 puitis pelajar ni dalam bahasa lain. (mungkin ada yang mahir sastera arab dll) tapi bila dihadkan mesti Inggeris pe-nyudahnya produk dihasilkan tu jadi lebih kurang.

Kalau kita lihat negara2 yang gaya senibina, rekabentuk yang hebat2 ni adakah sebab dengan menggunakan media Inggeris sema-ta-mata? Bahasa tu ‘Jiwa’. Tak kiralah kita terjemah sekalipun tapi sesuatu idea tu adalah lebih jelas bila disampaikan meng-gunakan bahasa asalnya. Sebab di situ letaknya ‘Jiwa’ idea, tema dll bagi karya yang pelajar nak buat.

Masuk bab lain pulak. Di UiTM ni kita terlalu suka fokus pada satu idea, gaya semata-mata. Contoh kalau si A buat macam tu. Yang lain pun mesti buat macam tu baru boleh skor? Sejak bila senibina ni kecil skop dia? Kadang2 kita lupa apa yang si A tu buat mungkin hanya berkesan masa tu je. Bila dah masuk suasana kerja pula mungkin idea si B pula yang tengah jadi trending atau ikutan. Tapi sayangnya si B ni gagal pada semester tu. Sebab tak ikut si A.

(Dah melilau kemana dah ni aku tulis?)

Syamil Shawal: I was in a train otw back to Shah Alam and met a guy named “anonymous” (tak ingat nama die), a second year student from Taylor’s taking “something something engineer-ing”.

How we met? Aku nak pinjam lighter die dan kemudian kami

berbual sementara menuggu keretapi.. “seperti melihat penyu diatas awan” aku terkejut bila die tahu selok belok berkenaan Arkitetktur di UiTM Shah Alam, tahu bagaimana “fuck up” nya kursus ini di sini.

+ UnProfessional Lecturers (Some of it)+ An Un-Matured Final Year students (some of it) who can’t even do their work but yeah bitch,you’ve passed by showing of your boobs. A+++++ All those Uni’s subjects that does’t relate to your field. (It’s for your future,dude!!)+ Un-necessary subjects for Architecture Students. (Bitch,you need to finish it though,you can’t fucking grad if you didn’t!)+ The admins who hates the students and students are like (Yeah bitch,who caress!)+ “This student is good,she has “big big big models” and “owhh,you failed,see you next semester”

This “anonymous” guy also said he really surprised that i can speak English very well. (No offense bro, i was surprised but i do proud of you). And yeah we continue talking about those stuff that we hate from time to time..

But the best part is, we hi 5 at the end of the conversation.

The point here is, it doesn’t matter who you are, what lan-guage you speak, what school you went, what grades you get, how good your work,how hard you failed, how big your boobs is..

Berkatilah dan Enjoy your life with guidance from Allah.. Semakin banyak kamu kejar Allah, nescaya “dunia” akan kejar kamu..

OK, jom solat Asar!

Aku mengarut je ni,kbai..

Munif Malek:It is a given that in any architectural forum or conversation that the question of ‘what is architecture’ al-ways pops up. We go on to question and synthesis every aspect of it from which school is the best or allegedly lesser, what styles are preferred, which architect is in and what philoso-phy is best and so on. And it is a debate/dialogue that will rage on for as long as mankind exist i’m guessing.

However, staying true to the topic of questioning everything, to me there is one aspect of architecture that is hardly ever questioned for maybe we assume the answer is way too obvious. WHAT is indeed the role of an architect? In my humble opinion at the root of most architectural confusion is the lack of un-derstanding about what do we do as an architect? We keep ask-ing what is architecture, but what is an architect itself?

An architect to me is among many things, a designer, a leader, a tactician, an artist, a romantic, an innovator, a master of precision, a rock to depend on and the list goes on and on and yet, most of us seem contented with reducing ourselves to be-ing mere sculptors. A designer is not an architect, an archi-tect is a designer and more. And i truly believe once we’ve understood our purpose to begin with, then, we would start asking all the right questions. just my 2 cents.

Syamil Shawal xdek point pun, aku nak cerita ape yg org share ngn aku,hahaha...

Muhammad Shamin Bin Sahrum Merg Far D Reidel haha ak bru ada borak dgn amer pasal medium bahasa tu, tula antara tujuan asal memulakan zine sesi suara nh. Untuk menarik lg ramai org menulis, bukan sahaja menulis, tapi confident utk hantar idea drang untuk dipamer dan dikritik di khalayak ramai. Sebab kita tgk indon, arkitek indon ramai je tulis tesis bagai dlm indon kot. Sepatutnya research paper pun dibenarkan dwibahasa, sebab whatever medium language that you’re comfortable with, is the best medium to articulate our ideas.

Syith Mukhtar “design you tak cantik” “baik you quit je se-mentara sempat” “kenapa tanya saya? cari lah sendiri!” “ok ok cepat habiskan point awak, saya nak cepat” antara ayat2 yg kita biasa dgr & diorg tak tau impact & scar yg di-inflict atas student.

Shiela Samsuri 00110010010111101010111

Based on a posters pasted on the wall during archifest, later posted on Facebook. A surprising conversation took place with involvement from juniors, seniors and alumni’s alike. The thread starts here.

Syith Mukhtar so what is architecture? certainly not for ppl with low self esteem, ocd, perfectionism, inferiority complex. ke uitm je?

Muhammad Shamin Bin Sahrum gempak Shiela pakai binary je ckp hahaha! ; p

Shiela Samsuri It’s worth asking “Can you tell there’s a Right, if you don’t know there’s a Left?”

2 sen je.. Cheers!

Adhrah Azaman “For the sake of making people question that im-agery absorption where it becomes so ingrained that to reject it would be almost like rejecting yourself.”

“…because people always scrutinize something they think is telling them something. But I wasn’t trying to give them any specific message, it was more, ‘question everything.’ “

– Shepard Fairey

01

Faiz Ahmad Liyana Hasnan: the question on bartlett, AA, and such is because, we as architecture students in UiTM is mostly exposed by the lecturer to these school of thought when the conversation is about pushing the boundaries and thinking outside of the box. There are other architecture school that are very good. And i myself prefer architecture that are about thinking but also can be realize. To me architecture should be something that make people wonder and think when they see it. They should question about it. And finally appreciate it. So there’re always sad cases where these thinking stays as think-ing rather than actually be realized. Merg Far D Reidel: The question on language is probably just because UITM is so desperate in producing universal workforce for the working industry. And it should be taught that way be-cause our student lacks the ability to communicate their idea to the client most of the time. But i do agree on that lan-guage shouldn’t be limited. Exploration of idea should never be limited on a single language or culture. When there is a chance for developing something, creating something, enhancing it using other language as a medium, it should be used to the fullest. They just have to figure out a way to make the client understand. Then again, we as architect should speak through sketches and drawings, its our lingua franca. The words that we speak should only be an a secondary insertion that we as architect used to convey our idea.

Faiz Ahmad Although these experiment seems to fail on that night, i think it work in bringing these few people here and talk about their views, opinions and ideas. Somehow this has become a fun to read forum. Haha...Looking forward to the next experiment.

Liyana Hasnan Can I continue to make this forum longer? What is exactly AA, Bartlett’s school of thought? Is “pushing boundaries” only associated with a certain school of thought? Surely all architecture schools asks this of their students, regardless of their discipline. And what does it mean to have a design realised - in contrast to just idea/”thinking”? I am for communicating with any language, but I have to admit, eng-lish is an important medium to learn. Only because most theory books are in English (unless we have it translated - anyone?). But, is learning theories in architecture important? Does it help? This is to everyone.

Muhammad Shamin Bin Sahrum haha this is getting better and better, since i am fortunate enough alhamdulillah to be ex-posed to different school systems, so lebih kurang i take bits and pieces of these schools away with me each time i leave, so im creating my own image of what education should be, a no-madic school sort off. And i personally am in love with those bits and pieces, uitm, bartlett, uts, itb, aedes, visitd other schools. Sebenarnya its up to us to create that perfect school in our minds. We change the outlook on where we study. So contoh uitm, uitm has its flaws, but i gotta tell you, because of its flaws, uitm creates the best rebels dari dulu lg haha. And as foundation knowledge before part2 anywhere else, per-fect enough. Bartlett: the exploratory, the freedom to search knowledge that we’re interested in. So it’s like that with other schools. Sume ada ups and downs, but we create it into a positive image.

Azeem Idzham Assalam. Saya rasa limitasi sekolah mana tu harus jangan diambil berat sangat.

Faiz Ahmad Liyana Hasnan: Every school tells their students to push the boundaries, but only some did so in a way that is seen as a sort of benchmark for the world to use. When the lecturer are telling the student to push the boundaries, they will use these schools as a reference so the student can see their goal. As for learning theories, i think its very impor-tant. Theories to me are the ingredient needed to make us push the boundaries, come out with new design and ideas. Without theories, we will just be doing something that already there. We wont be thinking about designing something that is better and radical, but rather something that we know already work and thus halting the advancement in architecture and design. Its just my thought.I agree with Muhammad Shamin Bin Sahrum, Azeem Idzham, and Adhrah Azaman that no matter where we learn, it shouldn’t be a limit. Our exposure are little, but are culture are not. UiTM has our own culture. Some are beneficial and some can be ques-tion. But overall, it shouldnt be a limit, but a constraint. We need to find ways to overcome it and develop ourself. A great man once said to me, “Architect are problem solver”, so if there’s a problem, lets design a way to solve it. Right Mu-nif Malek?. Hahaha.

Azeem Idzham: Saya rasa yang penting macam mana kita bela-jar. bukan tempat belajar. Dan penting juga macam mana kau guna ilmu yang kau belajar. on theories pulak. its like the ingredients you use to prepare a meal. Tapi kita ni tukang masak yang bagus ke? You want to keep it minimal or nak masak something yang complicated gila. So nothing wrong of knowing whatever theory yang ada. macam mana kita apply tu yang pent-ing kot.

Adhrah Azaman I personally think reading up theories help to develop the way we think about things, therefore developing on how we approach our work. Looking from a different perspective I guess. It’s not only theories but it can be also involv-ing us with other skills of other fields such as literature, music, video, photo, paint, furniture etc etc. Sometimes hav-ing these other skills on the side push us forward too. Almost like complimentary. And maybe, bringing those skills to culti-vate our architectural approach too haha.

I agree with Sam’s thought on uitm, it’s only after a couple of semesters that I’ve realised that we’ve only become like ‘this’ because we were from there. So perhaps it’s not neces-sarily the question of school, but the exposure that we’ve been given. Do you wanna be nurtured by the system or become like the system? But even so, that’s really our decision to make as individuals. To find or not to find. To make best of what we have learnt and where we are. Perhaps, in our school, we’ve not had that many opportunities to be exposed or was not encouraged enough as other schools, so we ourselves need to have the intiative to find and not wait to be spoon-fed. If you can’t beat them, join them right? Be on par. So are we all actually waiting for something to happen? Or are we better off finding things ourselves?

Munif Malek Yeah Faiz Ahmad, we are in agreement that whatever or wherever the school is, it shouldn’t be a limit, but a con-strain. UiTM obviously has it’s flaws, but the same goes for other unis. Other famous overseas unis have their advantages, but so does UiTM. That’s why i repeat my stance that if there ever is a serious problem with graduating architects it’s pri-marily because that architect him/herself does not understand what an architect is.

For example, UiTM, apart from designing, the supporting B.Arch subjects have significantly prepared me for life in the work-ing world, dicampak into multi-tasking multiple projects at once each at different stages of completing a range of build-ings. No time needed for the bosses to be patient for me to learn, for i have thankfully already learned so much about management & procurement & services systems before i even graduated. And though UiTM has a lot to improve, i know, dis-missing it as inferior despite what it has to offer displays a serious lack of understanding about what we do as a whole package. (practice & management amounts to almost 80% of what an ARCHITECT does btw).

No architecture school is lesser than the other. They’re all just better than one another in different categories. Differ-ent, not inferior. And it is up to us to make the best out of whatever or wherever our studying environment is.

Continue on with the second page of the thread-here.

Muhammad Shamin Bin Sahrum do you see the glass as half empy, or half full?

Liyana Hasnan Maybe start a new forum? haha..sorry2. Last question, No more school talk. Surely, drawings represent prior research, theories and influence into the representation of the whole project. Can drawings represent theories/influ-ences without the descriptive medium of the verbal/written? Again, English is an important medium to learn (I am not re-ferring to presentation - because I myself use Bahasa Malaysia at times) in order to read these theories/manifestoes/history/etc. So, are theories important, or picture images/diagrams/models are enough to convey ideas? And when learning history/theory, where do we stop - just modern/postmodern or should we also look into Heidegger, Semper, Nietzche, Rome, etc?

Shiela Samsuri Can I chip in?

I think drawing should represent what it wish to represent without any textual/verbal descriptions. However, claiming one is way easier than producing. Especially if you understand drawing with a purist manner, i.e black and white lines, without flying birds and catastrophic sky render-ings. (which I think is not a drawing, but an image..tp always a good trick masa part1 dulu..but anyhow....)

And to trace back history and theories is equally impor-tant for it gives you reasonings out of what is now being claimed..I mean who am I kidding, I got very scared when peo-ple dekat sini panggil nama Hiedegger, Foucalt, Guattari macam panggil nama barista buat kopi je, but the fact is, you cant escape philosophy, can you? As long as you’re a thinking human being..I believe..

And so yeah, everything must have derived from something.. so we should and we must understand or try to understand that there are points before lines, there was se-jengkal before ada se-sentimeter, and ultimately the Creator before His crea-tions. Maybe we should stop at where we originate from?

Muhammad Shamin Bin Sahrum Shiela Samsuri yes! im like who the hell is foucoult, descartes (cant even pronounce it properly), apa kaitan these wankers dengan archi. But i realised that the western civilisation refer to these men of contemplation be-cause it gives their knowledge genesis. I mean these philoso-phers have been widely quoted not only by us but other fields too. Showing that (which i think) it gives their field ulti-mate purpose, based on the human condition. Mcm for the mus-lims we have the Quran, and thats out main body or genesis of knowledge. All other cabang ilmu stems from that mcm the Mus-lim polymaths that r masters in several fields. It’d be inter-esting if we as muslims can refer to islamic scholars within the archi field, sebab mcm Al-Ghazali is on par and better than these western philosophers. And it’d be inline with the teachings of the Quran.

Muhammad Shamin Bin Sahrum Liyana Hasnan i think learning philosophy is an added value to the field, but like i said we all have our roles in life. We could still do meaningful architecture without philosophy like what vernacular archi-tecture is, sumtimes the whole philosophy thing side track kn kita from what we as architects are suppose to do in the first place, which is to cover peoples heads in the manner yang dia boleh give comfort both physically and mentally, and aestheti-cally where possible. As for drawings, erm i think drawing is a universal act that transcends language barrier, and if done

02

right can actually communicate better than words. I mean cave man drew, very crudely but it worked. They didn’t need to be around after a million years to explain that they ate buf-falo or minum susu lembu haha! But in our field i guess having an understanding of philosophy is needed, or not, depends on what you’re trying to achieve i guess. Depends on the product maybe?

Shiela Samsuri Muhammad Shamin Bin Sahrum, I am in full agree-ment..

If anything I remember vividly from my days back in UiTM was that siapa yg baca and fahamkan the Quran, those are the wis-est. En Wan Azhar said that during pt03. (...no, ni bukan ayat casss aha!)

Also I think you and Adhrah can set up platform for forums in near future perhaps? It is always good to hear and to talk and I believe it is time for us all to at least share the same path..again.

All the good things. Cheers!

Liyana Hasnan Sorry, this is not a response. But just to an-noy you, can you give your peers examples of drawings/art that does not or have not required any verbal/written description and also examples of architecture work without theories/his-tory attached to it? (I know it seems as if I am asking you to do my research for me here, and the whole forum is a cover to ask you to do my work.. - but its not..really..) Muhammad Shamin Bin Sahrum Shiela Samsuri anyone really..

Faiz Ahmad Munif Malek:just like what Sam said, UiTM creates the best rebels in this rigid industry.And thats how we manage to challenge the industry rather than just blending in and be part of it.Liyana Hasnan: To me, its not the question of whether drawings can represent prior research/theories and influences. Draw-ings supposed to represent it without the use of any verbal/written text. But sadly, most of the time, students including myself(especially) find it hard to create a drawings that can convey our idea perfectly. Most of the times, when you are us-ing theories that are elaborate or complex, drawings alone are hard. It is easier to represent our idea using drawings if the theories/concept are very direct. Bubble diagrams are impor-tant. To me the hierarchy of architectural language should be Drawings--->Sketches--->Bubble diagrams/other diagrams--->models--->text--->words. Whatever the theories is, it should be represented using these medium. So yes, theories are im-portant. This is my personal thought. If there’s someone with different opinion, please comment on it, i would love to hear some critic about the hierarchy of architectural language. On the question on where should we stop, we only limited by our-selves. I myself are still not familiar with the name of Hei-degger, Semper, Nietzche, Rome, etc. If you can found inspira-tion in them, then go ahead, learn about them. If they just bored you out, then dont force yourself to read it. You aint gonna be inspired by things you dont like. Shiela Samsuri: Great words...and i think the coffee actually helps. Haha.Muhammad Shamin Bin Sahrum: Although we can do architecture without philosophy, to me it lacks the stories that makes it interesting and the identity that define itself from oth-ers. Its like the different between buying a cake as a birth-day gift for someone or baking your own cake for someone as a birthday gift. The first cake will obviously faster, in term of taste(debatable), looks probably better on the first cake, but if you make it yourself, its the stories of you making it will be something to be talk about between you and the re-ceiver. Its the memories thats important in it. As architects, to me its philosophy that is important. But i do agree that philosophy should never make us loss sight of what we should really do as architect, which to me is create spaces where it serve a particular function to a particular people in the best way possible.

Shiela Samsuri Liyana Hasnan, this is just me (and my invol-untary memory) that triggered from the question (dont know whether this is valid) (then again i think drawing is a dis-course on its own?)

Sol LeWitt’s Eight Part Variations..

Azeem Idzham drawing tu macam melodi untuk lagu. theories tu bak lirik. perlu seiring, perlu seimbang. basically rupa dan kata.

Muhammad Shamin Bin Sahrum pamplet sesi_maya? anyone? ; p

Shiela Samsuri I dont know whether there is any architecture without history/theory though..

I think it is only possible with an intention? Anddd if one were to have an intention, it must has been based upon some-thing..time, place, politics, economy, etc. and even if, an architecture is built from suka-suka, loosely set, it must, at some point reason itself out, even by an inch..by at least, its practicality? say a brick upon a brick..there must be something that brings meaning. else, you’re “creating” a void? a non-existence?

And even if, things are not being built, say there is no building, I think drawings in itself are part of architecture? And drawings dated back to the ancient time, i.e Egyptian drawings, etc.. and we can trace its origin to lines (i have this thing with lines nowadays...)

so ya... don’t know whether im going off track but, i cant seem to think of an architecture without theory/history...un-less i don’t see enough, which is very much possible.

Azeem Idzham in short- you need them theories, studies and ex-planation on the drawings you produce. The best visual presen-tation is the one that can speak for itself, but dont you all think it’s better if you include them with the rational.. Even an artwork produce by a painter speaks louder when you know the stories behind it.

Merg Far D Reidel Terkadang-kadang kita terlupa yang haki-katnya bidang kita melibatkan orang lain juga. Macam bila kita sebut tentang diagram, rajah dll ni seeloknya seiring dengan tahap penghayatan masyarakat terhadap bidang seni/seni bina ni. Sebab itulah kadang2 kita sendiri pun kena tempias su-kar untuk memahami lukisan, rajah yang dihasilkan orang lain. Sebab itu adakalanya kita gagal untuk menyampaikan idea/pe-mikiran kita itu sebab kita lupa yang kita berurusan dengan mereka yang berlainan bidang/latar belakang. Kadangkala peng-guna lebih selesa dihimpunkan dengan teks berbanding rajah. Sebab rajah boleh diinterpertasi dengan banyak cara. Tetapi teks pula bergantung pada sejauh mana pemahaman kita terhadap teks tu sendiri. Mungkin?

Adhrah Azaman So I’m gonna give this a shot, please correct me if I’m wrong in any way (or carried away).

I’ve only had a few years of art exposure over high school for O levels, but I remember having a lot of exercises requir-ing us to interpret famous paintings by artists like Monet, Warhol, Van Gogh, and Duchamp etc into our own meaning with relevant context. Like… bold brush strokes means what, why did Van Gogh do the swirly strokes, why this colour palette, why distortion, why this, why that, what does it all imply. It basically helped us build our art language and understanding gradually.

So… from this, I think we do need some certain knowledge of theory, even if it just human emotion (that needs to be de-veloped), in order to understand drawings. But I only believe in this, so the viewer can fully understand what we are try-ing to reach. Those, yang dah fasih betul dalam art history/architectural language will be able to understand without an explaination because they must have built their language from something right? Like art historians, they are trained to ana-lyse works from way back when (when the art works didn’t have any explainations?) in order to explain it in this age, per-haps perhaps. But even they needed to understand the timeline, context, psychology etc..

Um… for a simple architectural example I think the Jewish Museum by Libeskind, his spaces were pretty direct to under-stand, the obvious voids spoke volumes and I don’t think that required a lot of explaining on why the spaces were like that haha. But again, maybe only because I’m an arch. Student that I get this feeling, so… maybe for others they’d need to know the history/theory behind it.

Syith Mukhtar we talk and argue about hydrogen and oxygen, bonds and masses, when in the end, we deal with people who needs ‘water’.

i am one of the strong believers that philosophy and poetry in architecture are as equally important as pens and papers. they make whatever we’re working on, worthwhile. balik kepada context, siapa pendengar karya kita? from the stories ive col-lected, the sets of panels abroad (i’ll skip the namedroppings and ranks), they have a little more faith in the students, when it comes to exchanging theories. a poem for a poem. my thoughts for yours. but here, its almost always the case of “your theories/approach contradict my list of authors, so you must be fabricating facts”. most of the time, your carefully thought and passionately refined approach gets passed off as extended delusions.

as for the age-old argument of writings/speech vs. drwgs, for me, knowing when and in which part does one method make bigger impacts than the other yg penting. sometimes a drawing pleases the eyes, sometimes the ears get jealous too.

sometimes i write with my elbows, maaf kalau terlari topik03

COM ING SOON.