University of San Carlos Publications

TOWARDS A FILIPINO ARCHITECTURE

Author(s): Winand W. Klassen
Source: Philippine Quarterly of Culture and Society, Vol. 6, No. 4 (December 1978), pp. 218-
227
Published by: University of San Carlos Publications
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/29791605 .
Accessed: 24/06/2014 21:07

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

University of San Carlos Publications is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Philippine Quarterly of Culture and Society.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 188.72.127.119 on Tue, 24 Jun 2014 21:07:57 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Philippine Quarterly of Culture and Society
6 (1978): 218-227

TOWARDS A FILIPINO ARCHITECTURE1

Winand W. Klassen
Universityof San Carlos

INTRODUCTION

During "Architecture Week" and the fourth annual convention of the

United Architects of the Philippines (UAP), which was held from the 14th
to the 17th of December 1978 in Manila, the First Lady and Minister of
Human Settlements, Imelda R. Marcos, challenged the architects to develop an
architecturewhich is trulyFilipino. She said: "May we enjoin architects and
builders to evolve designs that will reflect our culture and will utilize our
indigenous materials."2 And she continued: "Architecture is the most social
of the arts and should thereforecapture the spiritual and cultural identityof
our people. Let the spirit of our age be therefore written in our architecture.
This is a challenge thatwill require your creative talents and your national
pride."3
I thinkmost Filipino architectswill welcome this challenge because it
implies that the architect must assume the role of a Form-Giving Coordinator
with regard to our physical environment. At the same time some architects
will react to these noble words with at leastmild apprehension.Apprehension
because these well-intended words can easily be misunderstood and the applica?
tion of misunderstood intentions can lead to serious mistakes in the shaping of
our built environment. Therefore, the challenge, which is an invitation to
accomplish a difficulttask, involves a considerable risk of failing.It is thisrisk
I would like to talk about in this article.
Architectural design is the outcome of a complex decision-making process.
In our age it can no longer be done by just one person. Many experts must
contribute their share. But the finaldecision and responsibilityconcerning the
shape of the man-made environment rests with the architect.

Architectural design as just stated, results from a problem-solving process.

The manifold problems arising in the course of thisprocess can be classified

1
The title is an adaptation of a very influential book on architecture written by Le Corbusier in
1923, called: "Vers une Architecture." It was published in England under the title: "Towards a New
Architecture."

2Architectscope, Special 10th Anniversary Edition, Nov. 1978, Manila.

3Ioc. cit

This content downloaded from 188.72.127.119 on Tue, 24 Jun 2014 21:07:57 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 A FILIPINOARCHITECTURE
Klassen/TOWARDS 219

into three groups: 1. technical problems, 2. functional problems, and 3. prob?

lems of form. Architectural design is the integration of the solutions to the
technical, functional and form problems with regard to an area of the man
made environment. This will be our working definition.

Since there are three groups of problems, the risk we have spoken of is
present on any and all of the three levels. Let us consider these three levels of
risk separately and illustrate them through relevant cases from history.

I. The Risk of Failing Technically

There can be no doubt that the choice and use of buildingmaterials have
a great influence on the final outcome of an architect's work. Therefore, the
call of the First Lady to use indigenous materials for the purpose of creating
a Filipino architecture isworthy of attention.At the same time, it should be
clear from what has been said that the use of local building materials alone does
not create a truly Filipino architecture. It takes more than that. Technic,4
by which we mean choice of building materials and methods of construction,
only modifies the form in architecture. It does not create it (see diagram,
p. 220).
Of course, since technic is one of the important modifiers of form, it
stands to reason that the structural and aesthetic possibilities of indigenous
building materials such as bamboo, nipa, and coconut, etc., should be in?
vestigated, and new ways of using them should be studied. Natural fibers
in the Philippines, some of them now going to waste in the produc?
produced
tion of food, should be utilized. I foresee the local production of wall panels
made of native fibers which could be as good as plywood.

Secondly, new methods of construction adapted to our local conditions

should be worked out. In order to bring down the building costs so that a house
will be within the reach of the average Filipino family,a delicate balance has
to be established between
prefabrication in shops and factories and site assem?
bly. It is useless and impractical to take over blindly, in toto, methods of
construction from other countries where the social, technical and economical
conditions are different.This is, I think,what the First Lady meant when she
said: "Let us stop copying far away places .... We must learn to work with the
. . . . here."5 it remains also true that in other
Yet, technologies developed
countries can be adapted to theFilipino situationwith good results.

4
That is the term used in recent architectural literature. "Technique" is too narrow in meaning
to serve in this context.

Philippines Daily Express,Dec. 18, 1978,Manila, p.l.

This content downloaded from 188.72.127.119 on Tue, 24 Jun 2014 21:07:57 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
A SEMIOLOGICALAPPROACHTO ARCHITECTURE
byWinand W. Klassen

IV. MEANING I

I. The Human condition is a given cultural situation.

II. The architectural realitycan be interpretedas:

1. Work and labour (Frampton)
2. Interiorand exterior spaces (Zevi)
3. Nature, shells and networks (Doxiadis)

III. The Architectural form is:

1. The experienced aspect of the architecturalreality
2. The conveyor or expressor of meanings

IV. The meanings are the spiritual values and aspirations inherent in the
human condition.

Form ? ? Visual ? Venustas

Composition Efficiency
Function ? ? ? Utilitas
Planning Operational Efficiency
? ? ?
Technic Construction Structural Efficiency Firmitas

Architectural design is the integrationof solutions to formal, functional and

technical problems with regard to the man-made environment.

This content downloaded from 188.72.127.119 on Tue, 24 Jun 2014 21:07:57 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 A FILIPINOARCHITECTURE
Klassen/TOWARDS 221

When we
look for a pertinent case from history regarding the use of new
building materials and new methods of construction, the Industrial Revolution,
which began in about 1780 in Europe, comes immediately to mind. The ar?
chitects of that time were very reluctant to use the new building materials
produced by the industry, such as cast-iron, steel and glass, in an honest and
open way. In fact, itmust be admitted that the architecturalprofessionof the
19th century contributedvery little to the use of the new buildingmaterials.
On the contrary, it was the great engineers, like Joseph Paxton in England and
Gustave Eiffel in France, who demonstrated to the architects that satisfactory
architectural forms in terms of interior and exterior spaces could be achieved
by using the new buildingmaterials such as steel and glass in an imaginative
and creative way.

Architects, it seems, are by nature cautious and conservative when it

comes to the use of new buildingmaterials. Therefore, the call of the First
Lady is a source of encouragement at a time when it ismost needed.

II. The Risk of Failing Functionally

The second important modifier of architectural form is Function (see

diagram, p. 220). The danger for Filipino architecture is that functional solu?
tionswhich worked well in other times and climesmay be taken overwithout
investigatingfirst the basic needs of the Filipino and his society.We agree that
mere copying of "far away places and long ago?the Spanish and the Greek
styles, the California rock houses,"6 must stop. But let us not go to the op?
posite extreme and reject, out-of-hand, whatever ideas may reach us from out?
side. Let history be our guide. For instance, the Filipino is likely to resent
Spanish influence in any form as a vestige of colonialism and with some reason;
yet, something can be learned from past cultures, including that of Spain.
The Early Christians give us a perfect example of how to make use of a
past culture without taking over what is not desirable in it. There could be no
greater antagonism than that between Early Christian thinkingand the pagan
culture of ancient Rome. This was very effectively expressed by Tertullian,
an Early Christian theologian, when he said, in typical terse fashion: "What
"
similarityis therebetween Rome and Jerusalem! The Early Christianswere
confrontedwith the pagan culture of the Romans who hated them and put
them to death because of theirbeliefs and values.And yet, theydid not hesitate
to adapt some aspects of Roman culture to their own need and perceptions.

The Early Christians turned to theRoman pagan basilica, which was an

assembly hall for public gatherings,as a point of departure and source for

6
Loc. cit

This content downloaded from 188.72.127.119 on Tue, 24 Jun 2014 21:07:57 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
222 PHILIPPINEQUARTERLY OF CULTUREAND SOCIETY

inspiration in building their own churches.They made some basic changes in

the architectural arrangement as, for instance, moving the entrance from the
longer to the shorter side. These changes were dictated by their own func?
tional needs.

Like the Early Christian architect, the Filipino architect can make use of
a past culture, even if he has no particular liking for certain representatives of
that culture. But before doing so he must study the basic needs of theFilipino
people and then adapt the cultural achievements of the past to the needs of
our time.

HI. The Risk of Failure inForm

For the Filipino architect, and for any architect, for thatmatter, the
greatest risk is incurred with regards to form, and the consequences of a failure
here are the most disastrous. For the solutions to technical problems, the
architect can always turn to the technical experts, such as structural and
electrical engineerswho will advise him on questions of buildingmaterials and
methods of construction. For the solutions to functional problems, he can
avail himself of the advice of others, such as medical experts, anthropologists,
sociologists, psychologists and others who can assist him to determine with
some degree of accuracy the physical and spiritual needs of man and society
and can suggest an environment which will satisfy these needs. But for the
solutions to problems of form, the architect is on his own. In this task, tech?
nical and scientific experts will be of no help to him. He alone must coordinate
and integrate the technical and functional aspects into a meaningful form.
He is, in other words, the Form-Giving Coordinator with regard to the man
made environment.

Architectural form in this context is defined as the visual, or better, the

experienced aspect of the architectural reality,which is made up of interior
and exterior spaces (Zevi 1957); Doxiadis, in evolvinghis theoryof "elastics"
(1968) sees a work of architectureas a container that brings togethernature
and the (man-made) shells and networks of thebuilderwhich togetherproduce
a livable environment.Frampton (1970) distinguishesbetween two kinds of
architecture, which he calls "work" and "labor," respectively. By "work"
he means the highly expressive forms of architecture, such as churches,
museums, town-halls, etc., whereas "labor" refers to the more ordinary forms,
such as houses, stores, factories, etc. The latter forms are needed to set off the
more expressive ones. They are like the grass of a meadow, which sets off the
flowers in it (see diagram, p. 220). Secondly, form is the conveyor or ex
pressor of meanings. Meanings are in turn the spiritual values and aspirations

This content downloaded from 188.72.127.119 on Tue, 24 Jun 2014 21:07:57 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 A FILIPINOARCHITECTURE
Klassen/TOWARDS 223

of a given culture7 (see diagram, p. 220). It is the task of the architect to

integrate the solutions to technical and functional problems into an architec?
tural form in such a way that this form expresses the values and aspirations of
the culture he is working in.
With regard to the cultural situation in thePhilippines, the architectmust
firstof all be able to identify the typicalFilipino values. Secondly, he must
make them his own and, thirdly,he must be able to transmit them to the
buildingmaterials in such a way that these spiritualvalues can be experienced
by his contemporaries. That is what we mean by the creation of architectural
form.
In the Filipino cultural situation, it seems to me that there are three
layers of such values. The first layer consists of values inherent in the cultural
situation before the arrival of the Spaniards. The colonizers brought their own
cultural values from Europe and some of them were integrated with the pre
Spanish Filipino values. The resulting situation makes up the second layer.
Many of the religious and moral values of the Filipino stem from this layer.
The third layer consists of an integration of the second layer with some values
of the North-American cultural impulse; this began at the turn of the century.
The third layerpersistsbasically into the present time.
Concerningarchitecture, let me stress this point: we must never copy
past styles; instead, we must try to use the past creatively as a source of ins?
piration and as a point of departure for achitectural design.
Coming back to the creation of form,which is the unique contribution
of the architect, we can say that basically he has two sources which he can use:
man-made forms from the past and the present, and nature forms (see p. 220).
Let us statehere in all humility that forhuman beings, there is no such thingas
"creation out of nothing," this is reserved for God alone. When the architect
createsforms with which to convey the values of a civilization, he uses forms
he has seen before, whether he wants to admit it or not. But he must never
copy them. He must use them creatively, and with regard to nature forms, he
must use them abstractly.To be able to do this, the Filipino architectmust
understand the cultural situation of his people, i.e., give serious thought to the
three different cultural layers already referred to.
The values of the firstlayer are themost difficultto layhold of. It seems
that they can be rediscoveredonly in the villages and towns of the countryside.
The large cities show hardly a trace of the originalFilipino values but we must
try our best to rediscover these early values which, as we might expect, will
vary from region to region.

7Jencks, Charles. Semiology and Architecture. In Meanings in Architecture, Charles Jencks and
George Baird, eds. pp. 10-25. New York: Braziller, 1970.

This content downloaded from 188.72.127.119 on Tue, 24 Jun 2014 21:07:57 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
224 PHILIPPINEQUARTERLY OF CULTUREAND SOCIETY

Next, the cultural impulses impartedby the Spaniardsmust be analyzed

and understood. Filipino students are obliged to earn some units in Spanish;
this is a waste of money and effortforhe learnsnext to nothing of the lang?
uage. Instead, we should teach our young people how some of the Spanish
values were absorbed and became a part of Filipino culture.

The North-American impulses can perhaps be studied best in our big

cities. Again, a knowledge of the English language alone is not enough. An
earnest effort to understand the process of assimilation and its consequences
is needed.

The two cultural impulses mentioned above should be regarded as part of

an enrichment process of the native culture. Every cultural contact and ex?
change bringswith it good and bad elements; it is up to the recipient to accept
and adopt what is of value and use to him.

When the First Lady challenged us to build forourselves and thus achieve
a trulyFilipino architecture,I am sure she did notmean an architecturetotally
isolated from the rest of the world. History shows that all great periods of
architecture were born not in isolation but through an integration of various
culturalimpulses. The Greeks derived their architecture from the Minoans and
the Mycenaeans, the Romans from the late Greek
and Etruscan cultures,
and the Early Christians from the Romans, and so on. In our own age, it seems
that we are moving towards a kind of world-culture, in which all nations will
eventually participate in the benefits of our technological advances. This does
not mean that there should be no difference of cultural expression among the
nations. Individual nations, while having a lot in common with each other, will
continue to give individual expressions to their typical values according to
their specific historical and cultural situations. This world-culture could be
considered an extension of the image of man who shares with others his human
nature, and yet has his own individuality. Both aspects are important and to be
preserved. A sound balance between isolation and social interaction is also
needed in the growth of nations, especially in the growth of young and devel?
oping countries. Just as a human being brought up in total isolation will not
fullydevelop, so a young nation deprived of cultural contact with the outside
world will not achieve its full stature as a nation.

We mentioned briefly that in the cultural interaction among nations, it

is necessary to understand the differencebetween copying andmaking creative
use of the influencesfromoutside. Let me give a historicalparallel which shows
what happens when this difference is not understood. When Christian mis?
sionaries from theWest entered China in the 19th and early 20th centuries,
they were confronted with an ancient, fully developed culture. As they
preached the Christian message and made converts, they found that they
needed some buildings inwhich to gather for religious services.Without much

This content downloaded from 188.72.127.119 on Tue, 24 Jun 2014 21:07:57 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 A FILIPINOARCHITECTURE
Klassen/TOWARDS 225

deliberation they built churches in China which were exact copies of the
churches of their hometowns in the West. But eventually some sensitive mis?
sionaries felt that these churches did not fit into the general cultural context
of China. Some studies were made and finally Rome issued a decree urging the
missionaries to practice "accommodation," as it was called, to make use of
indigenous art and architecture. Thereupon, the missionaries set out to build
"Chinese" churches, school buildings,hospitals, and the like.What they really
did was what was to be expected: buildings that had an outward "Chinese"
character but were
the same old European-style structures underneath. In some
cases, though, actual Chinese buildings that originally had served other pur?
poses were turned into chapels and churches. These were authentic Chinese
buildings and must thus escape censure on that score. But they did not re?
present something new, created out of a true absorption of Chinese culture.
Perhaps more unfortunatewas the attempt of creating a style of painting that
was to be both Chinese and Christianby dressingup thefiguresof Christ,Mary,
the angels and the apostles, and other figuresfrom theOld and theNew Testa?
ment in Chinese garb. Well-meant as the attempt was, it was found unaccep?
table both by the ordinary Chinese Christians and the educated Chinese,
Christians or not. To the former, the paintings were simply not "Christian,"
accustomed as they were to the poster art of the missionary presses with their
crude but effective representations. To the latter they appeared as a ludicrous
attempt to "baptize" Chinese art by introducing some borrowings from Chinese
art into essentially Western conceptions.

Eventually themistakes made in this attemptwere recognized but in the

meantime the political developments inChina had put an end to thatmistaken
development. If it served one purpose itwas this: it showed clearly that a mere
borrowing of certain elements from one culture will not create a valid and
viable art, whether in the field of architecture or of painting.

The historical parallel just cited may serve as warning against similar
mistakes in the future. It should leave us in no doubt that the highest riskof
failure in the development of an architecture which is truly Filipino in charac?
ter will occur on the level of form. Forms cannot be created out of nothing.
And existing forms should never be copied. As stated above, there are two
categories of forms which should be used creatively and abstractly as a source
of inspiration and as points of departure. These are nature forms and man
made forms, as shown in the diagram on p. 220. Filipino nature forms such as
bamboo, coconut trees and many others should be used, but not "lifted" out
of nature. That would be disastrous. They should be usedabstractly. Herein
lies one important difference between architecture and painting. Painting can
be either representational or abstract. Therefore, painting can use nature forms
in a representational or an abstract manner. Architecture can use them only

This content downloaded from 188.72.127.119 on Tue, 24 Jun 2014 21:07:57 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
226 PHILIPPINEQUARTERLY OF CULTUREAND SOCIETY

abstractly. I hope nobody will attempt to make concrete columns look like
coconut trees, etc.; this is the kind of mistake I have warned against.
Man-made forms, whether or old, should also be used creatively
new
and abstractly as points of departure and source of inspiration, not merely
imitated.

Filipino nature and man-made forms, enriched by nature and man-made

forms from outside, offer the genuine sources for an architectural form which
is trulyFilipino.

CONCLUSION

The architects of the Philippines should welcome the challenge of the

First Lady to develop an indigenous architecture.But they should also realize
the high risks involved in such an undertaking: risks on the technical level,
risks on the functional level, and above all, risks on the level of form.
The Filipino architectneeds to be a focal point around which the genuine?
ly native Filipino values may be gathered. He needs to be a creative artist
sensitive enough to absorb unto himself themanifold meanings of Filipino
culture. He must also be able to transfer these values and aspirations to his
building materials. He must be a Form-Giving Coordinator. Only then will
he produce an architecturewhich is trulyFilipino.

REFERENCES

Alexander, Christopher
1970 Notes on the Synthesis of Form. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

Chermayeff, Serge and Christopher Alexander

1965 Community and Privacy: Toward a New Architecture of Humanism. New
York: Doubleday & Co., Inc.

Doxiadis, Constantinos A.
1968 Ekistics: An Introduction to the Science of Human Settlements. New York:
Oxford University Press.

Frampton, Kenneth
1970 Labour, Work & Architecture. InMeaning inArchitecture, Charles Jencks and
George Baird, eds, pp. 151-168. New York: Braziller.

Gardner, Helen
1970 Art Through the Ages. 6th ed. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc.

This content downloaded from 188.72.127.119 on Tue, 24 Jun 2014 21:07:57 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 A FILIPINOARCHITECTURE 227
Klassen/TOWARDS

Hall, Edward T.
1969 The Hidden Dimension. New York: Anchor Bks.

Jencks, Charles
1970 Semiology and Architecture. InMeaning inArchitecture, Charles Jencks and
George Baird, eds. pp. 10-25. New York: Braziller.

Langer, Susanne K.
1957 Problems ofArt. New York: Charles Scribner & Sons.

Lynch, Kevin
1966 The Image of theCity. Massachusetts: The MIT Press.

Morgan, Morris H. (tr.)

1960 The Ten Books on Architecture by Vitruvius. New York: Dover Pub. Inc.

Norberg-Schulz, Christian
1971 Existence, Space & Architecture. London: Studio Vista.

1975 Meaning inWesternArchitecture. London: Studio Vista.

Tzonis, Alexander
1972 Towards a Non-Oppressive Environment. Press Series on theHuman Environ?
ment. New York: Braziller.

Venturi, Robert
1968 Complexity and Contradiction inArchitecture. New York: The Museum of
Modern Art.

Zevi, Bruno
1957 Architecture as Space. New York: Horizon Press.

This content downloaded from 188.72.127.119 on Tue, 24 Jun 2014 21:07:57 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions