See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/328744029

LONG ROAD TO IDENTITY: Critical Study of Contemporary Nusantaran

Architecture

Conference Paper · September 2017

CITATIONS READS

2 924

1 author:

Diah Asih Purwaningrum

University of Melbourne
10 PUBLICATIONS   3 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Nusantaran Architecture View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Diah Asih Purwaningrum on 05 November 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 LONG ROAD TO IDENTITY:
Critical Study of Contemporary
Nusantaran Architecture
Diah A. Purwaningrum
Faculty of Architecture, Building and Planning, The University of Melbourne, Australia
Email: rr.diah.asih@gmail.com
Abstract—It has been almost a century from the first
discussion of Indonesia’s architectural identity. From time
to time, the translation of Indonesian architecture has been
changing, depends on the architects’ perspective and the
governments’ identity policies. Today, in the society where
culture and modernism are interweaved together, and with
the growing trend of using the term Nusantara1 to substitute
the term Indonesia, architectural translation is now being
challenged. This paper will discuss how Nusantaran
architecture is closely associated with physical translations,
and how local context is heavily affiliated with traditional
architecture. Critical standpoint will be employed and
combined with literature study to scrutinize contemporary
architectural praxis in dealing with the notion of
Nusantaran identity. 
Index Terms—Nusantaran architecture, contextual design,
architectural praxis, identity translation
INTRODUCTION
The issue of Indonesian context and identity has been
constantly discussed among Indonesian architecture
scholars and practitioners. It is a problematic topic, as it
is interlaced with social, political, historical, and
philosophical consideration at the same time. Indonesia’s
diversity of 240.3 million population (in 2009), with 500
ethnic groups and 700 languages and dialects spoken [1],
makes any effort to define Indonesia-ness with a one-
size-fits-all solution futile. Add to the complication,
Indonesia consists of 13,487 islands [2] where each area
has its own culture and natural characteristics. Indonesian
architecture is a combination of architectural influences
of local vernacular elements with features form China,
Japan, India, Persia and Europe, and a mixture of modern,
Manuscript received July 28, 2017; revised August 25, 2017; accepted
September 1, 2012
1
The term of Nusantara originally came from Kawi language, nusya –
means island, and antara – means within, or can be literally translated
as the archipelagic concept. This is the way to regard the sea among the
lands is not as an impediment, but as a unifier. In this paper, I use the
term of Nusantara and Indonesia interchangeably
.
traditional, vernacular, Islamic, Chinese, Hindu, and
colonial architecture. Thus, by having a basic element of
diversity, variety, unpredictability as part of Asian
architecture [3], Indonesia can only be understood by
embracing its national motto, ‘Bhinneka Tunggal Ika’
which means ‘Unity in Diversity’ or, literally, ‘in pieces,
yet one’ [4, 1, 5].
In discussing the topic of Indonesian architecture, I
will begin this paper with descripting a brief history of
how architects from time to time had been trying to
define Indonesian architectural identity. Then I will
continue with examining the current translation of
Nusantaran architecture, seen from the perspective of
architectural praxis. It will try to question the established
assumption of Nusantara architecture among
contemporary Indonesian architects.
THE SEARCH FOR INDONESIAN ARCHITECTURAL
IDENTITY
Tracing back to the long-going debated on the search
for Indonesian architecture, the discussion was openly
initiated in the colonial era, around 1920-30s. A distinct
group of Dutch architects introduced a movement of
Indies architecture, which tried to synthesize the East and
West influences. This movement referred to an
amalgamation of the archipelago’s concepts and ideas
which was neither ‘Indonesian’ nor ‘Dutch’, and
assimilated the two segments, West with its modernism
and East with its locality, without eradicating each other
[6, 7]. Most architects in that time was divided into two
groups which heading to different directions: some
focused on Indonesia’s cultural aspects, and the other
architects came up with the interpretation of tropical
architecture.
New translation of Indonesian context and identity
emerged when a new president was appointed after
Indonesia successfully claimed its independence in 17
August 1945. This new president, Soekarno, who
happened to be an architect, had launched a “national-
character building policy and national mega-projects”
with adopting paradigm of “modernism, functionalism
and reductionism” [3]. The aim was to escape from all
forms of colonial influences, incorporating modern
architecture as the vigour of the new nation, the symbol
of hope for the future as it represented “the optimism and
goodness of the newly independent nation-state and its
urge to make a new society after colonialism” [8].
Figure 1. CONEFO
Building, one of Soekarno’s nation-building project
(Source: https://mbuseru.wordpress.com/2013/06/07/mbuseru-
worldpress-com/)
The discussion then heading to different direction
when the next President, Soeharto tried to recapture
Indonesian identity through traditional architecture. It
was part of his attempt to reunite people who started to be
divided into financial classes, in order to “both feel home
and live in modern surrounding [8]. This movement
became a national agenda to bring back traditional
architecture to life, depicted in massive adoptions in
modern buildings, which sometimes resulted in
superficial forms and cosmetic resemblances with no
connection to deeper meaning and historical substance [8,
9, 10, 3]. These conditions ignited protests among
Indonesian architects, who then gathered and formed new
organizations. Indonesian Young Architects (Arsitek
Muda Indonesia [AMI]) 2 and JongArsitek! 3 were two
architects’ organizations whose aim was to find
competing power against conservatism to liberate
themselves from the regime’s monotonous narrow
regionalism. The era of Soeharto met the end when
people started to stand against the government through
Reformation movement, which then turned into riots and
anarchies. This plight brought people to start avoiding
contact with the open surrounding, prefer to live in
protected houses with high massive fences and trellis
securing the window, or choose gated communities to
live in with people from the same social class [8].
Today, Indonesian contemporary architects prefer to
follow modern style, both reflected in public and
residential building. This preference, including what is
commonly called ‘minimalist style’ (rumah minimalis) in
residential, has made unification in the faces of the cities
all over the country, eliminating the local elements and
2
Indonesian Young Architect [AMI] is an architectural organisation
founded in early 90’s. Using the word ‘exploration’ as the keyword of
their manifesto, they tried to challenge Indonesian architecture in that
time which they called monotonous and characterless.
3 to develop its own ‘peculiar’ architecture which possess
JongArsitek! is a recently emerged movement, first established in
2008. This group grasps an idea of nationalism among architects, which
somehow seen as the same spirit as Soekarno’s manifesto. It
periodically publishes monthly architectural electronic magazines which
promote young architects’ design projects and critics towards the
contemporary Indonesian architecture, especially aiming architecture
students.
social consideration. Indonesian architecture becomes a
big photocopy machine of what is there in the West, since
the architects try to absorb everything without further
adjustment. They do not put proper understanding before
chasing after briskly moving contemporary world.
Apparently, such way of thinking has spread to many
cities in Indonesia, resulting in the elimination of the
places’ unique characters [11].
CONTEMPORARY NUSANTARAN ARCHITECTURE
Seeing the current condition of Indonesian
architecture, architects, scholars, educators, and decision
makers have initiated to rethink about the appropriateness
of modern style in the Indonesian context. The challenge
for contemporary architects is not only to leave their
signature on the building, but also how to contribute to
the wider society in the same time. Single outstanding
building which speak its own language while isolating
itself from the surrounding context is no longer expected,
as architecture and context are inseparable [12, 6, 13],
covering the aspect of nature, environment, social,
culture, physic, and history. Furthermore, since there is
no one single answer when dealing with Indonesian
context, thus architects start taking particular standpoints
and developing various range of approaches of the
context. Most of them try to blend modernism with
localism, embracing both temporal context and cultural
heritage [4, 12, 9, 14]. The newly approved Law
concerning Architect 4 gives stronger legal basis in
directing architects to protect and strengthen local
architecture.
In the middle of internationalization versus
regionalism discourse, the notion of ‘Nusantara’ has
massively re-emerged offering a distinct identity of the
Indonesian archipelago. It is interesting to see how
contemporary Indonesian architects and scholars refer
back to this term as a substitution of the notion of
Indonesia. This term was coined seven centuries ago in
the era of Majapahit Kingdom, which considered as the
golden period of Indonesian history. In short, Nusantaran
architecture refers to architecture which is developed by a
huge numbers of local people from different tribes in
Indonesia, where cross-cultural amalgam and
interconnection among tribes is expected in embracing
the pluralism of Indonesia [15, 4].
In delving into Nusantaran contemporary identity,
architects give immense effort to redefine Indonesian
modernism that fits to the local context and identity. As
what Eko Prawoto mentioned, Indonesian architects are
in the search for a local beauty; a genuine beauty that is
honest, sincere, and humble; a beauty in the soul, not
from mathematic formula; a beauty that is not meant to
be made, but it is there [16]. To find it, most Indonesian
architects and scholars, if not all, agree that Indonesia has
4
Law No. 6 of 2017 concerning Architect has recently been signed by
President of Indonesia on August 8, 2017. It is mentioned on Article
3(e) that one of the purpose of this Law is to enhance architects’ role in
preserving and developing Indonesian culture. Moreover, Article 22(d)
states that architects have the obligation to promote Indonesian culture.
and express its own distinctive character that is rooted in
its local culture. To accomplish it, revisiting the context
of social, culture, history, and nature of Indonesia become
necessary; some aspects that have often been forgotten in
the making of modern architecture.
However, despite the massive effort in finding the
proper translation for this problem, I argue that many of
today’s Indonesia’s local architecture are still adopted in
physical manner, and some of which end up as decorative
ornament rather than speaking up as the soul of the
building. In the case of referring to Indonesian traditional
architecture, indigenous elements adopted are merely in
the stage of form and shape adaptation, which for some of
them, it ends up as simulacra.
NUSANTARAN ARCHITECTURE IN THE PHYSICAL
TRANSLATION
Linking Indonesia’s local aspect with modern spirit is
not an easy thing. Not only that it is challenging to find
the essence of locality that we need to grasp, the way we
translate it is also tricky. Without a proper modification,
the adopted features will looked like a mask to the
building; take it off, and you will have no local character
left on the building.
In seeking the basic substance of Indonesia’s locality,
architects face many possible options available. They
may start with something which visually identifiable, like
pattern, structure, arrangement, composition, layout, form
and shape, or begin with something more abstract like
current issues, local problems, phenomena, and so on.
Since there is no right or wrong answer in picking these
choices, thus architects’ subjective perspectives come up
and significantly contribute in the decision making
process. Their choices actually reflect the deeper values
that they embrace, which influenced by their personal
backgrounds, memories, educations, experiences, and so
on. This past experiences define on what part of the
locality the architects will emphasise on, which further
influence the face of the final design they come up with.
This is why architect as a designer is one important
determinant factor in constructing the face of Indonesian
architecture [12, 5].
In talking about the way architect links the local
context with modern spirit, Josef Prijotomo suggested
that there are at least seven possible approach that can be
carried out in combining the two 5 , whose alternatives
stretched out from an option to copy one’s culture to
another culture, to an option to discard both culture and
come up with something totally new. To simplify it, the
clear options are whether to modernize the local
architecture, or localized the modern architecture. Even
though it is the architect’s privilege to choose, but
Prijotomo urged that modernizing the Indonesia’s local
architecture is more expected as it lead to a more
entrenched concept which touches the very core of
Indonesian culture [5].
5
See 5. J. Prijotomo, Pasang surut arsitektur indonesia, Wastu
Lanas Grafika, Surabaya, 2008. (p.15)
However, from all possibilities, it seems that the
translation of local context in today’s Nusantaran
architecture is still dominated by tangible approaches.
Contemporary architects are constantly aiming in
exploring the local materials, adjusting to the tropical
climates, and contributing positively to the ecological
issues. Those focuses lead to a more physical solution,
which unconsciously pushes aside the other aspects, such
as social, political, historical, and economic
considerations [17, 12, 18, 19]. It is actually
understandable to see why architects tend to choose this
method in their design. Not only that physical aesthetic is
most recognizable for common people, it also the first
and obvious media to give attraction and impression to
the surrounding [5]. But problems will rise if esthetic
become the only consideration in the design process.
Many distinguished architects lead the way in finding
translation of Indonesia’s locality. They seek for new
creative ways to apply local forms and materials into a
new modern design. Some architects come with humble
design with vernacular look, using peculiar material that
requires high skill craftsmanship, and even incorporating
reused and recycled material. Other architects choose to
speak with ultramodern face, giving extravagant clean cut
look employing fancy fabricated material and high end
technology. But regardless their style, the interesting part
is that they all claim that their design is contextual, rooted
in the location where it located, and carrying the
characteristic of Nusantara (berwawasan Nusantara).
This manifestation is an evidence that Nusantaran
architecture does have more than one rigid face; it keeps
changing depend on from the perspective people see it.
Moreover, it is also interesting to ask about what
Indonesian architects mean by Nusantaran architecture,
and why they choose one particular translation instead of
others. And above all, it is also crucial to investigate
further whether their design really a representation of
Nusantara architecture.
The works of those prominent architects are widely
highlighted and discussed in popular architecture
magazines. The problem is that most of them are
delivered in descriptive manner without putting up any
critical position towards the projects. This situation
creates assumption in the society that this kind of
translation is the ‘most appropriate’ way to deal with
today’s Nusantaran context, and common people might
copy it in their projects. One thing to remember is that
seeing architecture without putting up some questions and
critics is somehow risky, because what we openly see and
heard sometimes may not depict the real condition of it.
As we know, most architects already develop their
persona which they always try to maintain. Interviewing
them with basic questions without further challenge their
answers may somehow lead to misleading interpretation,
since what they say may not always what they do, and
what they claim as a local-friendly design may not be that
contextual after all.
One interesting case comes from Depok Region near
the capital city of Jakarta. Central library of the
University of Indonesia is an award-winning building 6
which has become a new landmark for the campus and
gains outstanding recognition from national and
international media (Fig.2). The architect, Budiman
Hendropurnomo from DCM Indonesia, is also the most
frequent awardee in the history of IAI Awards – with
nine awards [20]. With an interesting concept of bridging
the past and the present, the design inspiration came from
ancient Indonesian practice of inscribing wisdom on
stone tablets, or locally called prasasti. The architect
chose to translate it into a high-end form using granite
cladding as building envelope. Claimed to be sustainable,
the building adopted the features of green architecture:
using pedestrian ramp rather than lift, maintaining the
existing trees and vegetation, putting skylight in some
part of the buildings, and integrating rain water
harvesting [21, 22, 23, 20].
Figure 2. Central library of The University of Indonesia.
(Source: http://www.archdaily.com/221155/university-of-indonesia-
central-library-denton-corker-marshall)
However, despite all the good concepts and impressive
achievements, this library also receives harsh criticism.
As far as we understand that this project is one of the
branding instruments for the campus’s tagline as the
‘world class university’, people somehow see this
building as a bit too much for a library. Not only about
the various spaces and fancy facilities that are not
effectively used, the commercial area is also considered
too high-class for students7. Many students mention that
they cannot relate to the building, and academically
speaking, this kind of building is not what they need [24,
25]. The building also has leaking problem which might
present either because of a flaw in construction process,
or because the design itself does not have a tropical
building features. Seeing these problems, despite the
success story of the building, the claim as a contextual
and sustainable building is somehow debatable. The
physical translation resembling local relic does not
merely make it contextual; in fact, from the illustration
above, it seems that social and economic contexts are
barely untouched in this project.
Another intriguing case that we can discuss is
Indonesia’s participation in the 14th Venice Architecture
6 international exhibition. Directed by Rem Koolhas and having a specific
This library was awarded with IAI Award in 2015. IAI Award is the
most prestigious recognition for Indonesian architects, held by the
Institute of Indonesian Architect. This case is chosen because it received
mix-respond, both impressive achievements and sharp criticisms.
7
The high-class retails and facilities mentioned include Starbucks
Coffee, Gold’s Gym, and Books & Beyond Bookstore.
Biennale in 20148. Curated by five Indonesian prominent
architects: Avianti Armand, Setiadi Sopandi, David
Hutama, Achmad Tardiyana, dan Robin Hartanto,
Indonesia raised the theme of ‘Craftsmanship: Material
Consiousness’ (Ketukangan: Kesadaran Material)
exhibiting a century of Indonesian architecture. In this
pavilion, six materials (wood, stone, brick, concrete,
metal, and bamboo) were displayed and wrapped up in
narrative arrangements of its evolution journey,
highlighting the history of how each material has been
used from time to time. It was also portrayed the
characteristic of Indonesia’s local craftsmanship, by
displaying of how the craftsmen’s position was so close
to the building, for they acted as contractor, master
building, artisan, and architects at the same time [26, 27].
This well-curated pavilion gained many appreciations, as
it successfully eliminated the common stereotype of
traditional architecture as the image of South East Asia’s
countries in the international world. It also illuminated
craftsmanship as a complex and rich concept at the very
core of architecture, displayed “a new level of self-
confidence” in assimilating material sensitivity as a
trademarks [28].
But in spite of the acknowledgement, this pavilion is
also criticised as a legitimation of how materiality and
physicality are closely associated with people’s
interpretation of Nusantaran architecture. Other aspect of
Indonesian context was not deeply discussed in the
pavillion. It is also considered that the chosen examples
representing contemporary time were mostly typologies
driven by an aesthetic approach [29]. This pavilion
seemed to show how the local material is used as
decorative patches. Let’s look at one example shown in
the pavilion, Potato Head Bali. Using recycled window
shutters as a façade, this building is a fascinating example
of how woods can be recycled and reused exquisitely in a
contemporary building. It implies that Indonesian
architects has reached high level of determination and
creativity in exploring common local materials and turn it
into a beautiful piece of architecture work [28]. What
might be a problem is that when it is displayed in a
prestigious international exhibition portraying the nation,
it is actually arguable that this kind of esthetic work can
be considered as a representation of Indonesian
architecture. Not only it is closer to esthetic work on a
physical appearance, this project also does not illustrate
the common architectural practice in Indonesia. This
beautiful building does depict the architect’s unique
translation of Indonesian architecture; but if we talk about
contextuality, then we still need further evidences to
unanimously agree this building is more than a pretty
face.
8
It was the first time Indonesia was invited in this well-known
theme of ‘Absorbing Modernity:1914-2014’, participating countries
were asked to look back into history and see their 100 years journey in
architecture. Indonesia’s participation in this event was not only
considered as a milestone for the discourse of Indonesia’s identity, but
also seen as a symbol of recognition of the world to finally acknowledge
Indonesian architecture.
 Those two examples above illustrate how local context
is often being depicted more in a visual consideration.
Every architect does have their prerogative to choose
their preferred translation; but as there is no one finite
answer in the discourse of local identity, then being
critical is somehow necessary. The phenomenon of
forgotten facets, like social, political, historical, and
economic consideration, are needed to be taken into
account, as an eye-opener that architecture is much more
than a beautiful design. Noting what Prijotomo suggested
about this issue, he urged that instead of focusing on
tangible appearance, Indonesian architects should start
looking at the ‘nuance’ that is offered by Indonesia’s
local context [5].
TRADITIONALISM IN NUSANTARAN ARCHITECTURE
In spite of the fact that modern vigour and technology
development have widely influenced the way
contemporary Indonesian architects design, yet traditional
culture, to some extent, is still seen as the main source of
idea when dealing with the local context. Throughout the
history, architects have made huge contribution in
preserving and passing on traditional architecture from
generation to generation. Although traditional
architecture is considered sacred for some groups of
people in certain areas, but in adjusting to the temporal
context, the need for adaptation and modification is
somehow inevitable. By altering traditional architecture
to a newer version of localism, we actually disentangle
ourselves from the rigid form of tradition9 and from the
trap of seeing tradition as a finished product of the
‘nostalgia of past time’ [5].
Having the same problem with other local translation
efforts, adopting traditional culture to modern context
might also get stuck in the adjustment of physical
appearance. Adopting traditional shapes and patterns are
considered the easiest and the most obvious way to bridge
the past and the present. As it is visually recognizable by
the local people, then embedding traditional form or
ornament in the façade will allow them to relate to the
story and the culture behind the design, which then
evokes their sense of belonging and their proud feeling
toward the building [30]. However, adopting this method
means that the queries of identity will remain in the area
of traditional form, ornament, decoration, or style [31].
This circumstance brings aesthetic issue to be the central
factor of design consideration, which may lead to a
cosmetic adaptation and superficial imitation. In this case,
with no further connection to the culture, history,
meaning and the society’s social patterns, then traditional
form is merely seen as a decorative pieces [3, 8, 5].
Looking back to Indonesian history, this kind of
adaptation had widely applied in Soeharto’s era. In that
time, applying traditional concept was mostly to adhere
with the authority’s regulation, requiring government and
9
Tradition is understood as values and practices which being passed
on from generation to generation. It is usually considered sacred, and is
being preserved with strict principle that gives no room for
modification.
public buildings to incorporate traditional form in their
design [8]. Traditional architecture was seen as the only
authentic source of ideas for developing Indonesian
architecture, as it was the ideal and final form of identity.
It was more like cultism which gave no room to grow. It
then led many architect to just patch and paste a piece of
traditional element to a modern building, regardless the
fact that the two were alien to each other. That was why
in that time, it was quite common to see traditional roof
stuck on the top of modern building (Fig.3) [5].
Figure 3. Minangkabau traditional roof attached to modern high-rise
building.
(Source: http://forumdaun.blogspot.com.au/2016/08/apakah-ornamen-
bersuara-ornamen-dan.html)
This narrow traditionalism actually contradict to what
happen in the society, as the ‘ideal’ traditional
architecture are barely there in today’s realm. Amanda
Achmadi in her works investigates how the ‘authentic’
traditional Balinese houses can hardly be found in today’s
Balinese communities. The application of tradition in the
society’s real life is far from what we consider typical
traditional, even in a preserved traditional villages like
Penglipuran Village10. Not only that these native people
adapt to the need of their growing families, they also
adjust themselves in the globalisation era where mostly
leads to the modernisation of their houses. In fact, in
current Balinese local architecture, traditional
architecture has become commodities, something to sell
to the tourist rather than a house to live in. Moreover,
since the price of local materials which commonly used
in traditional buildings has soar along with the increasing
demand of local resorts for bourgeoisie, local people try
to seek for cheaper alternative materials, mostly
fabricated one, for their houses [32, 17]. It is resulted in
their houses which are no longer ‘authentic’, but more as
hybrid houses, merging traditional bones and fabricated
skins.
Not only in architecture, the fusions of traditional and
modern culture are also openly displayed in other form of
art. In Yogyakarta and Surakarta, two most notable
cultural cities for Javanese tradition, ‘Jathilan’ 11 folk
10
Penglipuran Village is a preserved traditional village located in a
remote area of Bangli. The village was restored under ‘Bali Village
Tourism Development’ Project in 1992, and now it becomes one of few
villages in Bali that is still preserved nearly to its original condition.
11
Jathilan (kuda lumping) dance, or often called ‘braid horse (jaran
kepang)’ dance, is a dance depicting horsemen riding woven bamboo
dance has been mixed with hip-hop song, employing
acrobatic dancers with Mohawk hairdos and ankle boots,
and a singer rapped in Javanese language about the
wonders of their cultures [33]. Moreover, in packaging
their cultural parades, local governments prefer to use
English term rather than local language, such as Jember
Fashion Carnival, Solo International Ethnic Music
(SIEM), and Solo Batik Carnival. These phenomena
illustrate how Indonesian cultures and traditions have
now evolved and blended with global taste, changing
from previously a high-culture into what we call a pop-
culture [34]. With this changes, instead of seeing it as a
deterioration of Nusantaran cultures, these mixtures
exhibit the suppleness of the culture, as “the strength of
Indonesia’s polymorph culture lies in its elasticity and
adaptability, able to absorb many foreign (or regional)
influences, adopting these into new forms and
expressions” [35].
Aware of this potential characteristic, some of the
Indonesian contemporary architects have moved from
generic copy-paste translation. They have given
considerable efforts to make “transplantation, adaptation,
accommodation, and fusion” which is “manifested in the
large variety and hybridity of architectural styles and
forms” [3]. However, as visual aspect still becomes the
main consideration, architects use traditional concepts to
explain their design, mostly employ shape analogy which
sometimes sounds artificial and even a bit phony. They
might claim some similarities between their design and
the shape of traditional object (like house, weapon, fabric
pattern, or even sailboat), but when we ask a further
question about fundamental connections between the two,
only few might give satisfactory answers.
The problem here is most design decisions are not
based on comprehensive research; they are products of a
short glimpse of what is there in traditional world, which
then directly imported into a modern form. This is the
issue which Prijotomo criticized, that in many cases,
contemporary buildings are more seen as a ‘stranger’
rather than a ‘relative’ to the surrounding area, and it is
because the local and cultural considerations have never
been a part of the integral process of design [5]. Although
the architect might justifies it as a result of a very limited
time they have to finish the design, but somehow this
case depicts how contemporary architects prefer to adopt
pragmatic approach and produce a design that sells.
From my observation, I argue that architect’s idealism
towards local and traditional context is easier to be
acknowledged in a project where he is not required to
produce a certain form of modern architecture. Listening
to one architect’s explanation towards their design, his
concept sounds deeper and more rooted when he does a
small scale project that allows him to explore and to
make an experiment. Conversely, when the same
architect does a bigger scale project, an office building or
a shopping mall for instance, the concept he offers
horses. As this performance also incorporates supernatural activity,
some of the dancer will get ‘possessed’ and enter the trance conditions.
While in trance, they will display unusual abilities, such as eating glass
and resistance to the effects of whipping or hot coals.
become less genuine and natural, even sounds more like
an artificial justification that sometimes feel forced to fit
to the design. Surprisingly, some architects consider the
latter as a normal process in the dynamic circumstances
of architectural practice.
One of Indonesia’s distinguished architects, Yu Sing
Lim, is famous for his idealism toward the idea of cheap
housing. Along with this concept, he also develops a
special interest in ecological design and further explores
Indonesia’s local materials 12 . His experimentation of
local material is perfectly shown in his office, Akanoma
Studio in Bandung, where he uses bamboo as the main
material along with many reused and recycled materials.
In this studio, his expression in architecture emerges as a
genuine language of his version of local architecture. It
speaks a sincere expression which fits exquisitely with
the concepts that the architect used. However, it is
somehow interesting when listening of his explanation of
his other project that happen to have modern face, Pinisi
Tower in Makassar. In illustrating the design, he uses
metaphor of Makassar’s traditional house and traditional
boat to justify the design: the massing, the shape, even
the color of the building. Even though it is overall a good
and interesting concept, it just does not feel as
meaningful and as entrenched as the previous one.
Somehow it evokes the thought that the latter’s concept is
more like a mix-and-match between the design and the
traditional culture, and it does not sound authentically
Nusantara.
Another interesting building to be discussed is The
Grand Mosque of West Sumatra (Fig.4), design by Rizal
Muslimin 13. Initiated in a design competition, the TOR
required a mosque design that represented West
Sumatra’s local vigour. Started with Islamic and
Minangkabau cultures as the main concept of the design,
the architect came up with a design that represent a piece
of cloth used in carrying the Black Stone (Hajar Aswad)
in the time of Prophet Muhammad. Despite of the
concept, the local people mostly acknowledge the design
as a beautiful representation of ‘gonjong’ roof as part of
West Sumatra’s traditional houses. Incorporating
traditional carvings as façade ornaments, this design
gained mostly positive responds from both judges and the
public, saying that as local people, they can relate
themselves with the mosque’s design [30]. It is
fascinating to see how the architect successfully engaged
people’s attention and allows them to relate themselves
with the building, mostly from the shape alone. It will be
also interesting to ask further question to the architect of
why he translate the local spirit required in the TOR into
a traditional architecture language. This phenomenon
12
Interview with Yu Sing Liem, Bandung, 11 August 2017
13
This mosque is chosen to be discussed because it has a very good
acceptance from the local people in terms of representing its local
culture. In her thesis work, Feni Kurniati mentioned that 95% of the
responded agreed that this building successfully displayed their local
culture. Among those positive reviews, 52% of them think that the
mosque is associated with the shape of Minangkabau traditional house,
Rumah Gadang; 35% attracted by its local traditional decoration on the
façade and on the interior; and 8% linked the building with the
philosophy of Minangkabau culture.
actually represents the common practice in Indonesian
architecture which sees local culture as heavily affiliated
with traditional elements. Even in modern context, it
seems that the concept of locality still cannot escape the
tight entanglement of traditionalism.
Figure 4. The Grand Mosque of West Sumatra.
(Source: https://harindabama.com/2016/08/27/minangkabau-the-land-
of-buffalo-horns/)
CONCLUSION
Identity is fluid; it keeps moving and changing
depends on the standpoint taken when we are looking at
it. The same thing happens when we try to understand
Indonesian architecture, as it is best viewed as a process
rather than a product. Envisioning it as an open concept
gives us better acceptance in seeing the divergence of the
people. From time to time, massive efforts have been
done in the search of a form of architecture that can
represent the nation, and the translations vary from
traditional to modern expression. The local context,
which stretches from traditional culture to ecological
issue, has always been a source of ideas in defining
Indonesian architecture. But it is obviously problematic
to find one single type of architecture that speak for the
whole country; it is as futile as putting the one single face
to all of diverse people in Indonesia.
In generating hybrid architecture, mixing local
contexts with modern faces open to various
interpretations. Reflecting on what happen in recent
Indonesia, I argue that physical translation has always
dominated the face of contemporary Indonesian
architecture. It becomes problematic when other facets of
locality are pushed aside, while those barely touched
aspects, like social and economy, actually rasp more to
the society rather than just a visual beauty. Being
contextual is far more than just adopting form or shape
that resembles local or traditional objects; it has to be
reflected on the deeper nuance of the building.
Compared to previous eras, contemporary architects
have made exceptional progress in architectural design
regarding the concept of local and traditional. But since
the face of Indonesian architecture will never be final,
then questions and critiques still need to be delivered, to
make room for improvement and advancement in the area
of architectural design praxis.
REFERENCES
1. B. Hartawan, "Unity in diversity: An indonesian vision of
international relations," DTIC Document, Carlisle, Pennsylvania,
2011.
2. D. U. Hargo, "Jumlah pulau di indonesia," Sekretariat Jendral
Dewan Ketahanan Nasional R.I., vol. 2017, Wantannas, Jakarta,
2016.
3. J. Widodo, "Modern indonesian architecture: Transplantation,
adaptation, accommodation, and hybridization," The past in the
present: Architecture in indonesia, P. J. M. Nas (Editor), KITLV
Press, Leiden, 2007.
4. Bakhtiar, J. O. Waani and J. Rengkung, Tipe teori pada arsitektur
nusantara menurut josef prijotomo, Media Matrasain 11 (2014), no.
2, 32-47.
5. J. Prijotomo, Pasang surut arsitektur indonesia, Wastu Lanas
Grafika, Surabaya, 2008.
6. A. Kusno, Behind the postcolonial: Architecture, urban space, and
political cultures in indonesia, Routledge London and New York,
2000.
7. C. Passchier, "The quest for the ultimate architecture indonesia in
the late colonial period," 2008.
8. A. Kusno, After the new order, University of Hawai'i Press,
Honolulu, 2013.
9. A. Tardiyana, "Reflection on design projects of the 2002 iai award
and the development of contemporary indonesian architecture," The
long road towards recognition, Gramedia Pustaka Utama, Jakarta,
2005.
10. G. Tjahjono, "The young are innocent, sensitive, bold, and full of
energy, enthusiasm and expectation. For the young, the world feels
romantic, wide open to exploration, and full of opportunities to
experience and enjoy.," Karya-karya arsitek muda indonesia 1997-
2002, I. Akmal (Editor), Gramedia Pustaka Utama, Jakarta, 2002.
11. A. Purnomo, Relativitas: Arsitek di ruang angan dan kenyataan,
Borneo Publications, Jakarta, 2005.
12. G. Çizgen, "Rethinking the role of context and contextualism in
architecture and design," Department of Architecture, vol. Master
of Science, Eastern Mediterranean University, Gazimağusa, 2012.
13. R. Thomas and T. Garnham, The environments of architecture:
Environmental design in context, Taylor & Franscis, London, 2009.
14. I. Widiastuti, "Bedah buku “ketukangan: Kesadaran material”,"
IPLBI [Ikatan Peneliti Lingkungan Binaan Indonesia], vol. 2017,
IPLBI, Bandung, 2015.
15. M. Arkandiptyo, "What is the difference between the concept of
nusantara for malaysia, indonesia, singapore, the philippines and
majapahit?," Quora, vol. 2017, Brussels, 2016.
16. R. Hartanto, "Reportase: Ketukangan tradisional," Konteks, vol.
2017, Jakarta, 2014.
17. A. Achmadi, "The architecture of balinization," Architecture and
identity, P. Herrle and E. Wegerhoff (Editors), Transaction
Publishers, Berlin, 2008, pp. 73-90.
18. M. I. Hidayatun and R. Damayanti, "Modern architecture
documentation method in indonesia: An alternative approach," 3rd
modern Asian Architecture Network (mAAN) International
Conference, Surabaya, 2003, pp. 61-71.
19. E. Prawoto, J. Widodo, S. Sutanto, B. Lim and B. D. Muynck,
"Komentar juri penghargaan iai 2008," Ikatan Arsitek Indonesia,
vol. 2017, Ikatan Arsitek Indonesia, Jakarta, 2008.
20. "Iai awards - sebuah perjalanan," Ikatan Arsitek Indonesia, Ikatan
Arsitek Indonesia [IAI], Jakarta, 2015.
21. "University of indonesia central library / denton corker marshall,"
ArchDaily, vol. 20172012.
22. The Australian Institute of Architects, "2012 finalist: University of
indonesia central library – denton corker marshall," The
International Chapter, vol. 2017, The Australian Institute of
Architects, Melbourne, n.d.
23. A. DCM, "Education + health," Denton Corker Marshall, vol.
2017, DCM Architects, Melbourne, n.d.
24. F. R. Pramono, "Ini 6 kemewahan perpustakaan ui yang menuai
kritik pedas," Liputan6, vol. 2017, Liputan6.com, Depok, 2015.
25. A. Armando, "Soal menghamburkan uang rakyat, pimpinan ui
jagonya!," Life is Beautiful, vol. 2017, Wordpress, Jakarta, 2012.
26. A. Anex and R. Hartanto, "Paviliun indonesia venice biennale
2014: Video teaser," Konteks, vol. 2017, Jakarta, 2014.
27. A. Armand, S. Sopandi, D. Hutama, R. Hartanto and A. D.
Tardiyana, "Ketukangan (craftsmanship)," Ketukangan: Kesadaran
 Material (Cratsmanship: Material Consiousness), Ikatan Arsitek
Indonesia [IAI] Jakarta, Venice, 2014.
28. H. V. D. Wal, "Craftsmanship: Defiance or opportunity? ," Konteks,
vol. 2017, Konteks, Jakarta, 2014.
29. D. Ang, "Points of departure," Konteks, vol. 2017, Konteks, Jakarta,
2014.
30. F. Kurniati, "Representasi nilai keislaman dan budaya minangkabau
dalam desain masjid raya sumatera barat," Architecture, vol. Master
of Science, Institut Teknologi Bandung (ITB), Bandung, 2016.
31. K. James-Chakraborty, Beyond postcolonialism: New directions for
the history of nonwestern architecture, Frontiers of Architectural
Research 3 (2014), no. 1, 1-9.
32. A. Achmadi, "Beyond traditional balinese architecture: Hybrid past
and contemporary architectural formation of penglipuran village,"
The past in the present architecture in indonesia, P. J. M. Nas
(Editor), KITLV Press, Leiden, 2007.
33. B. Hatley, Performing identity and community in indonesia in
modern times, ACCESS: Critical Perspectives on Communication,
Cultural & Policy Studies 31 (2012), no. 2, 27-38.
34. J. Storey, Cultural theory and popular culture: An introduction,
Taylor and Francis, Hoboken, 2015.
35. F. Steinberg, "Eclectic architecture in indonesia: Looking for
identity? ," Architecture and identity, P. Herrle and E. Wegerhoff
(Editors), Trensactional Publishers, Berline, 2008, pp. 449-454.
View publication stats
Diah A. Purwaningrum, born in Semarang
(Indonesia) on June 1987, is a Ph.D student in
Faculty of Architecture, Building and
Planning at The University of Melbourne. Her
research interests include design method,
design pedagogy, contextual design, and
Indonesian architectural identity. Her
dissertation focuses on contemporary
Nusantaran architecture from the perspectives
of design praxis and education.
She attained a Bachelor’s Degree (2010) in
architecture, and a Master’s Degree (2012) in architectural design, both
from Institut Teknologi Bandung (ITB) at Bandung, Indonesia. She then
worked as a professional Architect for two years, before deciding to join
her alma mater as an Academic Assistant. In 2015, she officially
became a Lecturer in Architecture Department at ITB, joining
Architectural Design Research Group.