Balancing Tradition, Art, And Architecture In Modern Buildings

‘Our generation has been trying to discover the common thread in which the fabric of Indian Architecture has been woven in the past; and its significance for our times’ - Raj Rewal, 1984.

Durability in Traditional Building

Before attempting to answer this question, is Modern architecture less durable than traditional, and if so, is this a result of ideology, practice, or both, a more basic question has to be asked, or, put another way, a basic assumption has to be questioned. Many of the criticisms implicit in the above examples assume that a building upon completion should be just that, complete, and that with routine maintenance painting, cleaning, etc. should last many years; a further assumption is that if it is a work of “architecture,” and not merely “building,” it will last considerably longer. We may or may not have a deep-seated need to believe in the transience of contemporary buildings, but there is ample evidence that we do have a deep-seated need to believe in the permanence of traditional buildings, and we have developed a tendency to overlook those instances when these works fail to meet our expectations. While a great deal of Modern architecture has deteriorated more rapidly than might be expected, a great deal of traditional architecture has done no better.

Durability in Traditional Theory

The idea, important buildings should be not only durable but also permanent is so integral with the Western idea of architecture as to escape notice, except by those critical of Western civilization.

In this conventional wisdom, true architecture, as opposed to building, is the construction of monuments elevated to art, and must be as permanent as the ideas it represents. The length of time during which architectural objects are calculated to endure confers on them an impression of durability which can hardly be attained by any of the sister arts.

Durability in Modern Theory