Paper short abstract:

N/A

Paper long abstract:

One of the main ways in which to approach the subject of building is as an architectural object. Here building is not only concrete as a material thing; it has very definite parameters in how it is perceived in its design, from an initial idea to a final form. It is defined by the expectation of a building as something that is thought about, those plans are put into action, and then it is made as a complete entity. With this view of things, the source of creativity is located in the idea, and in the object, and so meaning can be read back from the final form.

An emphasis on Architecture and Design has resulted in the sidelining of other kinds of construction: they are set up as unequally opposed to Architecture as the Vernacular or Primitive. The production of these forms is understood through Tradition rather than Design. However, there are many architectural historians that write about the human value of building traditions, and this is articulated in contrast to 'Western constructs of Architecture'. Indeed, one architectural historian has stated that it is at this point that you can mark the move of a more reactionary 'non-pedigreed' architecture into anthropology in the works of Rapoport and Oliver.

I would argue that prehistorians have read design from form, whilst at the same time assuming that they are dealing with primitive material because of the nature of their evidence as 'pre-classical'. And so design has been replaced by the notion of building traditions. If we shift our understanding from architecture as object to architecture as practice, and locate creativity in the process of making, what does that do to our understanding of design and tradition? This paper will argue that there are other kinds of architectural thinking that prehistorians can connect with. For the 'As Found' movement there was the perception of inhabitation as a creative part of the design process itself, creativity was to do with attentiveness and a concern for that which already exists, the task of making something from something. There is an awareness of the importance of the already there in the creative practice of architecture. My question is: should prehistorians extend and develop a critical understanding of building traditions, or could it be more effective to reenergize design practice? The paper will debate this topic.