Ever since our species learned to make and use tools, we have been striving to create better and more efficient ones. This was the birth of technology. Since then, man has continually developed new and better ways of problem-solving. This progress came almost exclusively from abandoning what did not work and replacing it with what did. It would be wholly unnecessary to use technology of the past that would fail to meet the expectations of the modern world when better alternatives are readily available. Just like technology, architecture must progress. We should avoid being caught up with using techniques which are irrelevant to our modern setting when better alternatives are accessible. Past architecture may be enthralling and hold nostalgic value, but we must emancipate ourselves from its charm and develop new techniques which will be more relevant to our era. We must progress.
In early architectural history, the primary focus of the architect was to provide spaces for simultaneous shelter and worship. Early places of worship were macabre in nature and were constructed in ways to remind the users of the structure that they were insignificant and at the mercy of their gods. The style of building then was directly relative to the culture and ideologies subscribed to in that time. Since we do not conform to those ideologies any longer, we cannot justify using those building techniques in contemporary architecture. This shall be my main argument against designing with any past architectural style, solely because it reflects our Barbadian heritage or culture.
A good example of an architectural style that was relevant to its era is the Palladian style. Italian artists, writers and philosophers of Palladio’s time became increasingly aware that the grotesque theocracy they were coerced to live under needed an urgent dismissal. They used their respective art, literature and architecture to enlighten to the Italians of a new ideology. Palladio’s buildings were his medium of raising consciousness. His style rebelled against the classical Greek and Roman styles being practised. It reinforced the point that a change was necessary for Italy to thrive.
Modern societies have almost completely abandoned theocracy, and our cultures are now more based on humanist and democratic values. This secular outlook of life has proven to be more ideal than the views of a few hundred years ago. This has made the designing with classical themes completely obsolete. Logically, one would assume that the practice of Palladian and classical styles would end in post-Renaissance Italy. This has not been the case.
When Barbados was founded, the settlers introduced the Palladian style to the island. Centuries have passed and the style can still be found in many contemporary Barbadian buildings. Palladian architecture was brought introduced to the Caribbean by the British during the Renaissance. This style was representative of the way of thinking then. This makes using Palladian style today seem to be mindless mimicry. There seems to be no inspiration to design buildings in this way. This senselessness is what makes the borrowing of ancient styles so pointless. The arrchitects who invented the styles had reasons for designing the way they designed. Contemporary architects have no justification for their mimicry.
Abandoning historical styles may seem to be the equivalent of betraying our heritage, but it does not have to be. We can always keep record of how things were. Literature and building preservations are good ways to remind ourselves of how far we have come as a species. It may be warming to look back at how things used to be once upon a time, but we must, at the same time, recognise that progress comes from looking forward. We must not dwell in the past.
Modern architecture has provided us with aesthetically pleasing buildings completely devoid of any non-structural, “beautifying” elements. Such elements are very closely related to ancient styles—their application in today’s architecture would be absurd. Modernism has acted as an international style and a necessary escape from ancient times. Through Modernism, man has again made progress. Science has become a critical factor in the way modern societies have been molded. In the last century or so, we have developed efficient ways of manufacturing steel, glass and concrete. These materials have changed the way we view building construction. Buildings could now be erected with a lot less effort and craftsmanship than ever before. This, and the fact that these materials can be mass produced at relatively low costs, has made building with solid stone inefficient to the point that it has become impracticable. A growth in technology has also meant that inter-nation communication was easy; one could easily find out what was happening in other nations, if willing to find out. This has somewhat contributed to the spreading of modernism worldwide.
We live in the information era. The era where science and technology has defined who we are as a society. Every aspect of our daily life is influenced by technology: the way we communicate; the way we travel; and even the foods we eat. Progress demands that we drop the unnecessary components and build on the ones that are working. As historical architectural styles no longer represent who we are as a species, it too must make room for what does represent us. If any style is to be practised in this age it must be modernism. It is a celebration and an embracement of our growing knowledge. Modernism is efficient and it works.
Nothing has helped human society more than building upon our past experiences. Our collective progress has separated us from the other animals. Our ideologies and available technologies are constantly changing for the better. Looking forward has brought us this far. Why must we look back now?
