Architecture in a Post Conflict Environment

Nationalism is closely related to a variety of architectural elements, beliefs, and philosophies. A variety of nationally significant architectural works serve as examples of this. Architecture is by definition a product of intellectual endeavor. It produces an object that undergoes an intellectual process. Among other cultures, architecture has an expressive tendency. The materials used in its actualization have an ideological and historical relevance, and it is a language with its own rhetoric. The architectural works’ design cues and aesthetic choices reflect how a particular organization’s social structure has developed. Architect can either be defined by the architectural style expressed in the different works or as a national identity. For instance in a nation, a building such as the Parliament can be a symbol of nationalism. In some other instance, the architect can identify with their own work rather than the picture of nationalism. Designs of building and structures in identity conscious societies the expression of identity is placed to task plus that of the architect. The architect’s background and culture form basis of their works in terms of the view of the world and their perception. This essentially creates importance of training and laying down of both ideological and physiological foundation for the architects. The elites in the society in such a case will have more influence and can forge policy frameworks that are in line with the traditions of the population (Musterd and Kovacs 2013). The Skopie project some in 2014 for instance did not reflect on nationalism and could in a way ruin the nation’s public image (Attached).

The architecture presents the national identity by way of its expression in form of representations that can be through traditions and cultural portrayals in a bid to promote the historic legitimacy and continuity. The architect role thus is to create designs that are more reflective of the individuals’ traditions and cultures. The people are able to identify more with their traditional symbols and myths as portrayed in the designs of architecture helping generation transition in terms of cultures. The continuity with the past is enabled as architectural works acts as symbolic to the traditions and cultural practices (Hall 2002).

Building construction is often identified with particular time in history. For example during the medieval era in Britain, the parliamentary building was constructed. The European identity at the time was authentic and most architectural works acted as English symbols. During the era most prominent buildings of government were erected in an antiquated design a slight departure from the Neo-Classical designs that were trending. A revision of the historical events thus presented a way of identity and a continuity of the past. Different cultures presented their identities in their different architectural forms creating unique autonomy of cultures in terms of their designs. Individuals often in determination assert their cultural formation in a rhetorical way and essentially creating a national identity that is stronger. The utilization of words such as monuments presented a style in history which was mainly done in the Neo-Classical era. The ancient Greek and Roman architecture are presented by their Adorning structures characterized by the porticoes and column presenting governmental values and democracy.

Architecture affects the sense of nationhood as most people identify with particular works which are symbolic to them. The people’s culture unlike nationalism is more natural. If the cultural significance is utilized in the national works as a symbol of nationalism, People will identify more with them. A national culture is thus generated which is praised and justified despite being a creation of architecture. Control and power is presented by the architect’s expression in terms of their designs. The works by expression should outline both visual and spatial values (Sepe 2013).

In conclusion, the architectural significance is often explained by the discourses that tend to establish the architecture’s relationship with identity by highlighting symbolism aspect and ideology. There is however, an ambiguity and complexity in the use of architecture as a national identity and can only be solved by way of cultural manifestation. Architecture and identity thus differ but correlates in their significance with regards to cultural and nationalism aspects.

Work Cited

Correa, C. (1983): Quest for Identity. In Proceedings of the Seminar: Exploring Architecture in Islamic Cultures 1: Architecture and Identity, The Aga Khan Award for Architecture Frampton, K. (1985

Hall, D. 2002. Brand Development, Tourism, and National Identity: The re-imaging of former Yugoslvia. Journal of Brand Management 9 (April): 323-334.

Heather N. McMahon, An Aspect of Nation Building: Constructing a Hungarian National Style in Architecture, 1890-1910, Master of Arts, Central European University

Hobsbawm, E (1990): Nations and Nationalism since 1780. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Lang, J (2002): A Concise History of Modern Architecture in India, Permanent Black, New Delhi

Musterd, S. and Kovacs, Z., 2013. Place-making and Policies for Competitive Cities, Oxford, Willey-Blackwell

Sepe, M. 2013. Planning and Place in the City: Mapping Place Identity. Rutledge