ICONIC ARCHITECTURE AS A VESSEL OF COMMUNIQUE : CRITICAL DISCOURSE ON ENCODING, DECODING AND SELLING IDENTITY

Abstract

In the 1980s, French leaders have commissioned a coterie of modern architects to design Paris’s extravagant Grands Projects, conveying its cultural dynamism and identity. Today, many cities have pursued similar goals, establishing their own status through acquiring architectural show pieces and other public art trophies1. Iconic Architecture, like advertisements, has been increasingly considered primarily as communicative texts and this revived ancient art of rhetoric convinces users of the value in associating with a particular identity by culturally encoding it with popular meanings. Exploited by Mammon, it is akin to an expensive city marketing campaign manipulated to transmit an arresting, idiosyncratic image of urban verve. Accordingly, this paper asserts identity as the perverse origins of Iconic Architecture, the crux of its existence. Hypothesised as vessels of conveyance, icons must therefore be systematic and capable of imbuing specific meaning through various modus operandi. Yet, legibility in three dimensions only forms part of this equation. To effectuate the function of icons and justify its existence, readers must evidently be able to decode its meaning verbatim. In questioning the possibilities of conveying meaning through architecture, the notion of Iconic Architecture is challenged. Through a series of five parts, this dissertation attempts to investigate dialogic identities. First, the process of conveying meaning is deconstructed from frameworks used in other fields. Second, encoding steps is cross referenced with elements commonly used as expressions in Iconic Architecture. Third, the decoding process is investigated as a reverse process from users’ viewpoint. Fourth, the influence of media on communication was deliberated. Lastly, these four factors were tested in a case study of Beijing’s National Stadium. In addressing these issues, it is hoped to uncover and enunciate the incestuous relationships of Iconic Architecture and identity creation. Can Iconic Architecture be read as trophies of progress – freezing selected values in time or as magnifying lenses of architecture – upholding the principles of yore in new perspectives, amplifying the values of today while hinting at the kaleidoscope of fads and fashion for tomorrow? Can Iconic Architecture even be considered as vessels of conveyance if evidenced by successful historical precedence? Is there Iconic Architecture? Perhaps, at the end of this discourse, one may appreciate that value in Iconic Architecture is beyond its attraction as a trophy for the city. Its coveted status may be the result of interactions between imbued meaning by its readers and intentions of the author; a tool to condition the mind, suggestive of identities.