The Architecture in Comparison with Tugu Nasional 国家オベリスクと比較した建築
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
日本建築学会技術報告集 第 25 巻 第 60 号,977-982,2019 年 6 月 AIJ J. Technol. Des. Vol. 25, No.60, 977-982, Jun., 2019 DOI https://doi.org/10.3130/aijt.25.977 国家オベリスクと比較した建築 THE ARCHITECTURE IN −ニューヨーク国際博覧会(1964)に COMPARISONTHE ARCHITECTURE WITH TUGU IN COMPAR NASIONALISON 国家オベリスクと比較した建築 −WITHIndonesian TUGU Pavilion NASIONAL in 1964 New York World’s おけるインドネシア館 その 2 − Fair Part 2 − ―ニューヨーク国際博覧会(1964)におけ --Indonesian Pavilion in 1964 New York るインドネシア館 その 2― World’s Fair Part 2-- Harry KURNIAWANーーーー * 1 ハリー クルニアワンーー* 1 Keywords: Indonesian pavilion in 1964 New York World Fair and Tugu Nasional Harry KURNIAWAN *1, 2 ハリー クルニアワン - * Indonesian Pavilion, Tugu Nasional, Monument, Architecture, (National Obelisk) were built in the same period of Nation-Building NationalismKeywords: ProjectsIndonesian through pavilion the insame 1964 collaboration New York Worldwork ofFair President and Tugu Sukarno Nasional (as Indonesian Pavilion, Tugu Nasional, monument, architecture, nationalism the(National patron) Obelisk) and Soedarsono were built (as inthe the architect). same period Both buildingsof Nation displayed-Building several similarities as the result of the nature of Sukarno and Soedarsono キーワード: Projects through the same collaboration work of President Sukarno (as キーワード: workthe patron method.) and The Soedarsono purpose of(as the the study, architect) through. Both the buildings comparison, displayed is to インドネシア館,国家オベリスク,記念碑,建築,ナショナリズム インドネシア館、国家オベリスク、記念碑、建築、ナショナリズム getseveral further similarities description as the about result the of thearchitecture nature of Sukarnoof Indonesian and Soedarsono pavilion. Itwork is identified method. The that purpose Indonesian of the study,Pavilion through was an the identical comparison, twin isof toTugu get Nasionalfurther description that created about to live the in architectureand for different of Indonesian environment. pavilion. It is identified that Indonesian Pavilion was an identical twin of Tugu Nasional that created to live in and for different environment. first, the constructing elements of a national monument which 1. Introduction are consisted of the site (Independence Square), main building This paper is continuing the research on the architecture of (Tugu Nasional) and annexes, and buildings around the site2; Indonesian Pavilion in 1964 New York World’s Fair (NYWF). second, the representation form of Indonesian Revolution; third, Previous research which studied President Sukarno’s the symbol of soul and spirit the nation3; and, fourth, the form to involvement on Indonesia Pavilion revealed Sukarno’s influences connect present Indonesia to the past4. In addition, TN also on creating the grand narration and image of the architecture. displayed the ideal relationship between the government, citizen, Meanwhile, this paper will discuss Indonesian Pavilion in and NBP through the involvement of Indonesian citizen, not only comparison to Tugu Nasional (National Obelisk) which is one of as the object of the NBP, as the funders for the realization the main monument in Nation-Building Projects (NBP) process5. Leclerc narrated this project as ‘sovereignty figure, a and—still—an important landmark for the civic temple and a reliquary for the cult of Proklamasi6.’ capital—Jakarta1—and the nation. This comparison was made It took long process and times to build TN. The idea was possible as both, Tugu Nasional (TN) and Indonesian Pavilion, initiated by several peoples in early years of independence which were designed by the same architect in the same NBP period then followed by the formation of—the first—special committee through the same intens guidance of Sukarno. Therefore, the in September 17th, 1954. The structure of the committee was explanation about TN, which was delivered by Soedarsono, as changed in 1959 and restructured again two years later with the recorded in Salam (1989), and discussed by Salam (1989), Leclerc appointment of President Sukarno as chief of committee as one of (1993), Kusno (2000), and Fakih (2005), is expected to fill the its main alteration (Salam, 1989). The search for the design took limited references about Indonesian Pavilion. This study result six years till finally concluded in its final form in 1961. It passed is intended to give more explanation on the architectural two national competitions in 1955-1956 and 1959-1960. The first characteristics of Indonesian Pavilion and to complete the result competition awarded three entries without the first winner. The of previous study. design submitted by Friedrich Silaban was chosen as the second winner while two others brought the third prize. The second 2. Tugu Nasional competition, from 1959 to 1960, received 136 proposals but none Tugu Nasional stands in the center of Lapangan Merdeka was picked up by juries, which was including Silaban 7 and (Independence Square) in Jakarta as a 130-meters high chaired by Sukarno, as the first—and even the second—prize monument. The context which surrounded the creation of TN winner. At last, Sukarno asked Silaban and Soedarsono to could be the most comprehensive illustration of the idea about propose a design that developed from the result of two previous NBP and national monument. In this project, Sukarno explained, competitions. Sukarno chose Soedarsono’s design for its closest * *1 *1 'RFWRUDO6WXGHQW'HSWRI$UFKLWHFWXUHDQG%XLOGLQJ6FLHQFH*UDGXDWH *Doctoral東北大学大学院工学研究科都市・建築学専攻 Student, Dept. of Architecture and Building 博士後期課程.Science, Graduate School of 東北大学大学院工学研究科都市・建築学専攻 博士後期課程 / ガジャマダ 6FKRRORI(QJLQHHULQJ7RKRNX8QLYHUVLW\06F Engineering,(〒 Tohoku宮城県仙台市青葉区荒巻字青葉 Univ., M. Sc. / Lecturer, Dept. of Architecture) and Planning, 大学工学部建築計画学科 講師(インドネシア) /HFWXUHU'HSWRI$UFKLWHFWXUHDQG3ODQQLQJ)DFXOW\RI(QJLQHHULQJ Facultyガジャマダ大学工学部建築計画学科 of Engineering, Universitas Gadjah講師 Mada (Indonesiaインドネシア) (〒 980-8579 宮城県仙台市青葉区荒巻字青葉 6-6-06) 8QLYHUVLWDV*DGMDK0DGD ,QGRQHVLD 977 translation of Sukarno’s vision about TN (see the comparison of close relationship through Sukarno’s wish to have only the both in Table . The construction was started with names of the two of them to be carved on the inscription of TN, groundbreaking in August 7th, 961 and opened officially in and Soedarsono’s acknowledgement on Sukarno, along with July 2th, 1975—after it was suspended for several years because Professor Ir. Thomas Ni, as his architecture teachers12. These of the unstable nation’s condition. three reasons are right for the obective and urgency of the In the beginning, the idea of TN was to be ‘a monument to construction of Indonesian Pavilion. the Indonesian nation’s valour, “an emblem of the people’s will to soar on high”, (and an emblem of “rising up to the firmament”8’. Table 1. Comparison between Sukarno’s Vision and Soedarsono’s Design Ideas on Tugu Nasional This generated the concept of grandeur that should be fulfilled No Sukarno’s Vision Soedarsono’s Design Ideas by the architecture of TN. owever, ‘emphasis was laid on 1 Representing ‘Nationalism’ Recalled Proclamation date 17-8-45 2 Symbolizing Indonesian as dimensional keys to achieve the Sukarno’s decision for the Tugu Nasional to house the ‘sacred revolution ‘nationalism’ relic’, Bendera Pusaka Sang Dwiwarna, the very red and white 3 describing Indonesian Traditional symbolic elements drawn personality on a lingga-yoni15 pattern flag that had been hoisted at Pegangsaan Timur on 17 August 4 Illustrating the dynamics of Reveal the history of Indonesia 19459’ that changed the nature of TN from three-dimensional Indonesia brought out from dark into light and 5 reflecting the ideals of becoming light itself a lighthouse) outdoor work into a programmatic monument. Indonesia through the lingga-yoni (with museum inside) Symbolizing and describing ‘ever-burning fire’ of people’s spirit the fire that blaed within represented by a flame our chests Constructed by material that Built by materials which would ‘last lasted for years for centuries’ Illustrating movement Actualiing moving line that is not monotonous from the base till the top 3.1. Elements of a onument The comparison was started by discussing TN and Indonesian Pavilion in the context of building a national monument. The site, main building and annees, and buildings Fig. 1. Tugu Nasional and buildings around it around the site are explained by Sukarno as elements to transform a NBP into a national monument16. The study on this 3. Comparison to Tugu Nasional elements in both buildings see figure 2) revealed the similar Sukarno was known for his active involvement to guide each appearance and obective of it. It confirms either the Indonesian NBP right on its track. However, there are specific reasons to Pavilion characteristic as a Tugu in national monument. assume that the comparison between TN and Indonesian First, the Independence Square, a 0.00 square meter Pavilion can reveal the narration of Indonesian Pavilion. First, trapezium field for the site, was an important part of the city Soedarsono’s design, as explained before, was chosen for its since colonialization. It, named as Koningsplein during conformity with Sukarno’s vision. One of the visions stressed as Netherlands-Indies period, was place for events and planned, the advantage point of Soedarsono’s design is the representation through the commissioned of Dutch architect and city planner, of Indonesia personality (Salam, 9. Second, Soedarsono was Thomas Karsten, as ‘a kind of main crossroads and central venue, used to say that for the design ‘he actually did no more than or, at least, a place to locate most of the city facilities and develop an idea sketched out by Sukarno10’. This work method of governing bodies 17 ’. One of the main element of Karsten’s Soedarsono in TN proect was not the first—and not the only masterplan was a proposal to move the Town all to the very one—in his collaboration with. It has been performed since the center of the square. Sukarno took over the design, function, and first assignment—or test—given by Sukarno which would have meaning of this park through the new masterplan and the brought Soedarsono to his position as the first Indonesian ‘Palace position of TN in the location of proposed Town Hall. The Architect’11.