Modern China: An Architectural Conundrum (PART I)
Several months ago I wrote my critique on Taipei 101 by comparing famous tall buildings around the world. Taipei is not the only Chinese city with poorly conceived buildings. There has been a lot of criticism thrown at the Pudong district of Shanghai, which in the past decade has gradually become host to many controversial buildings groping for real meaning.
In every major city in China, buildings have taken on a similar feeling everywhere - cheap-looking, weird-looking, not well thought of, etc. To summarise all this in a word, I would use Cheesy (or to be more accurate Chinesey *wink*). The true reason behind this phenomenon has puzzled many people of late.
In this series of blog posts, I intend to explore various aspects that have contributed to this conundrum. I begin with my thoughts on the Yingzao fashi debate.
THE ‘YINGZAO FASHI’ DEBATE
Some would attribute it to what they deem as the Chinese culture of being non-artistic. According to certain academics, a document called the yingzao fashi written in 1103 CE during the Song Dynasty (960-1279 CE), contributed to the dearth of creativity in Chinese architecture. The yingzao fashi was a set of building guidelines. Some perceive that setting rigid rules on how buildings should be built hampered creativity.
The fashi served as standard building by-laws
I personally do not think such by-laws hampered creativity. The existence the fashi greatly reduced excess and ensured public buildings were constructed efficiently. The yingzao fashi is just like how our government sets building by-laws, a practice which is deemed compulsory everywhere in the world.
Was the development of architecture hampered after the writing of the fashi?
In a way, it was. After the Song dynasty, buildings were all built in a similar style conceived during the Tang dynasty. Architecture from then on was really just refinement of an existing style all the way up to the 1900s.
A Song Dynasty styled theme park
completed in 1996
The real question should be, is the fashi primarily responsible for the lack of architectural creative development?
I do not think so.
Many scholars would have liked to compare this period of roughly 900 years of Chinese architecture with the developments in Europe. In my opinion, that would be comparing apples with oranges. First of all, China did not experience the Dark Ages which Europe went through. China was self sustaining, technologically advanced and economically powerful.
During the Ming Dynasty fine chinaware bearing the blue dragon
design was reflected the high levels of
craftsmanship of that time.
During the Ming Dynasty, Chinese eunuch admirals led grand fleets that circumnavigated the globe (according to Gavin Menzies). The ships Zheng He used in the early 1400s were far more superior to the small caravel Columbus used in the 1490s to sail across the Atlantic. What happened to this grand Chinese Navy? By Imperial decree they were all abandoned/burnt after completing their task of exploration. China then decided that it was the most enlightened nation and shut itself off from the rest of the world.
When China decided it was already perfect, there no longer was a need to think of further development. China entered an era of complacency which prevailed into the Qing Dynasty (Manchu Dynasty). Although the Chinese first discovered gunpowder, they were utterly helpless when British warships laden with canons arrived at their shore in June 1840. Such was the decadence which was borne out of complacency and arrogance.
Did architecture stop developing after the fashi?
Not really, in fact, Chinese architecture became increasingly more beautiful aesthetically from the time of the Song Dynasty. What remained were the building systems established by the Tang Dynasty. Chinese buildings maintained the vernacular style of the large gabled roofs, but ornamentation became more and more elaborate and refined through the years.
The Forbidden City built in the early 17th century
reflects the high standards of architecture achieved
during the Ming dynasty.
Ultimately, the fashi was not primarily responsible for what scholars deem as a stagnant development of Chinese architecture from the Song Dynasty to the Qing Dynasty. I would say that the feudal wars and internal strife during bad times hampered the development, coupled with arrogance and complacency during good times.
Sticks and stones…
The story of architecture is ultimately a story of materials. The materials used in each era determined the style, size and use of any building. In the West, what were deemed strong materials were often used. i.e. stone. Stone was seen as something solid and a material that would last forever. Hence materials developed along those lines. While the Greeks purely used stone, the Romans developed it further and came up with artificial stone. With innovations in materials, arches began to appear. Some hundreds of years later, pointed arches appeared in Gothic buildings. To cut it short, stone remained the primary material for buildings until the industrial revolution, because the gwei loes thought stone = versatile and eternal.
While many Western buildings fell into decay, Oriental buildings
such as the Ise Shrine have stood the test of time by practising efficient
methods of renewal. Ise Shrine is totally rebuilt in the same fashion every 30 years.
Likewise, components of Chinese buildings could also be easily replaced.
Let’s look East. In China, Korea and Japan, Timber was the primary material. Timber is often seen as a weaker material in comparison to stone. Chinese builders figured that it was easier to replace timber components as opposed to stone. Builders devised ingenious ways to maintain a building and all this was most probably handed down via documents such as the fashi. That is why we see so many thousand year old buildings in China but find stone ruins in Europe! In the end, the ingenuity of oriental timber buildings survived the test of time.
If it ain’t broke, why fix it?
The Chinese during the Ming Dynasty probably knew damn well that they were ahead of everyone else in the world. They were culturally and scientifically advanced. Even in building systems, the Chinese were far more advanced than the West. The Chinese people historically were more externally motivated rather than internally motivated. It is also their preference to, as much as possible not ‘rock the boat’.
Hence when the Ming Dynasty decided to shut itself off from the rest of the world, China achieved a different level of complacency. By the end of the 19th century, China was still building using the same system inherited from the Tang Dynasty while the Europeans had already developed reinforced concrete and steel structured building. So, at the end of the day, the Chinese were perfect to a fault!
To be continued...
PART II China shock: 150 years of drastic changes
PART III Lessons for a better Chinese cityscape
Image Sources:
http://www.city.ashikaga.tochigi.jp/ashikaga/english/tourist/gakko/syosyo.jpg
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/eastasia/eastasiasbook.html
http://www.chinats.com/hangzhou/ attr21.htm
http://www.beijing-travel-guides.com/images/forbidden-city.jpg
http://www.jinjapan.org/access/ arch/shinto.html