Monument(al) Reader:
A Descriptive Guide to Perceive Objects via Their Forces
Abstract
This thesis is a form of criticism involving the development and adaptation of architectural epistemology within the context of social constructivism, which invokes the interrelation between several components; monumental structures which serve as a placeholder in urban typology, constructivism as the bridge connecting artistic impression to psychological perception and material culture as the framework bracing both tangible and intangible components. The theory postulated is controlled and focused in Central and Eastern Europe where communism and socialism were practiced and referred to as fundamental elements in defining the countries ethos. The hypothesis posited can be viewed as an act of dissection and extraction of political repertoire which are mapped onto symbols, statues, and monuments. Various factors will be taken into account for a comprehensive and in-depth process in synthesizing and hybridizing tangible interpretation of monuments/spomeniks. Monuments (read: objects) act as symbols and key generators in steering the trajectory and propagation of nodal points within an urban realm. The conversation between the built environment and socio-political components potentially promulgates new methods and body of works in justifying how objects can be perceived. Intervention in terms of proposing new methodologies is critically required in achieving an equilibrium between objects. The hypothesis posited possess a latent quality that can generate a descriptive manual or a handbook kit-of-parts in translating the language of dysfunctional architectural objects and how we can communicate with its embedded elements in a justified way by acknowledging both the human and object’s existence.
Speculation of Neo-Constructivism towards Urban Realm
Neo-Constructivism is a method of adapting, a medium of interacting, a mode of communicating, and an extension of ourselves in adapting to the surrounding forces. The conceptual ideology behind the emergence of Urban Object becomes a criticism towards contemporary public spaces and simultaneously raise heated arguments on how monumental structure is becoming obsolete over time. The fine line segregating a non-functional utilitarian structure and fully functional monumental edifice need to be addressed and it should not stop there. Constant renewal and modification of these components are profoundly critical in making sure social systems are always adhering to the relevancy of political trajectories. The intensification of a public realm is indeed a reflection of society’s belief system and its attitude towards a synchronic symbolization of a monument as a landform and a landmark to the contextual ideologies. A monument is not merely a statue, not even close to being treated as a tombstone, instead, it uncovers the palimpsest of forces generated by temporal and spatial elements of complexity embedded within the macrocosm. The genealogy of monumental structure needs to be identified and sorted accordingly in order to allow for better integration of a symbolic prominent structure. The quiddity of an Urban Object as a strategy in achieving total rejuvenation of urban planning plays an important role whilst reconciling the innate purpose of a monument. Urban Object should be a tool, a repertoire and an edifice in coordinating the arrangement and composition of urban patterns and growth. Neo-Constructivism as a coherent ideology in delivering the implementation of Urban Objects is effectively crucial as it will integrate with the fundamentals of Tektonika, faktura, and Construction. All of these constituents indicates a peripheral element binding all arguments together. Urban Object is a form of speculative thought towards the near future’s criterion of a monument. And by proposing the assertion, Neo-Constructivism should be perceived as a monumental reader.
