Perspectives on Practice: “Narasi Arsitektur” Podcast by bvnd

When I read news about architecture becoming the #1 most-coveted faculty at my alma mater, I wondered about what factors could have made it happen. This was despite architectural studies being presented in bad light for a political campaign last year, which illustrated how today’s university graduates have difficulty finding employment. The sentiment was denied (unsatisfactorily, according to me and my peers) by the chairman of the Indonesian Institute of Architects. Perhaps, this is merely testament to how “all press is good press”. [I want to hear your view if you are a student interested in architecture — drop a comment below or reach me elsewhere.]

But it is well-known that the majority of architecture school graduates in Indonesia don’t end up becoming architects. The head of the architecture department at the University of Indonesia stated that only 50-60% of their graduates go on to practice in their field. He did not cite architecture-specific tracer studies, so I would even hazard to say that 60% is an exaggerated percentage. For regions outside of Java-Bali, some schools even state that around 40% of their graduates are not absorbed into the job market at all. Several factors were mentioned to contribute to this problem, including the legal trickeries of the construction system which often hurts architects, as well as the difficulty of completing architectural studies itself.

Early-generation Indonesian architects on their approaches of creation

Note: I wrote this in 2015 for a class assignment, and decided to repost it here because the content of this seminar has valuable points for Indonesian architectural discussion. Two of the notable architecture figures who spoke in this event, Achmad Noe’man and Sandi A. Siregar, are sadly no longer with us, and this post is dedicated to their memory. [Versi Bahasa Indonesia tersedia di akhir artikel.]

What makes good architecture? That is a question those in the architectural profession, be it in the realm of academics or in practise, seek to answer time after time. And as history tells us, the answer is hardly a simple set of principles that are universal and applicable over time; rather, they take the form of various approaches that are coloured by each person’s subjective understanding.

To understand where different preferences in approach are coming from, it is helpful to examine each of their zeitgeist: ideas that were influential at the time, events that had come to shape their social atmosphere, and what ideals were considered desirable to achieve at that time. Such are the matters brought to light in the seminar “Objectivity in Subjectivity” on February 21, 2015, which invited several generations of architecture professionals: those active at the time of its conception in Indonesia and their following generations.