By Dixon Bwalya –

OCTOBER 24, 1964 is not the date the Zambian people attained their independence or freedom; rather this is the date that marked the commencement of the decolonisation process that, hopefully, would ultimately lead to the attainment of independence or freedom in the various sectors of human endeavour whether it is political, economic or even technological independence.
Attainment of independence is a process even at the time of the abolition of the slave trade a number of “freed” slaves continued to suffer from an inferiority complex resulting from the many years of slavery.
It is a fact that even fifty years after 1964 there are still some Zambians who are still mentally colonised in their conduct and everyday thought processes.
The architectural profession is not an exception to the effects of colonization.
In August this year the architectural profession lost one of its past Presidents in the name of Architect Walusiku Lisulo who, as far back as 1977, posed a challenge to the architectural profession to seek architectural independence.
Thirty-seven years down the line and as the country celebrates its golden jubilee it might be an appropriate time to relook at that challenge posed by Architect Walusiku Lisulo as a conclusion to his dissertation.
Architect Walusiku Lisulo titled his discourse as “THE CONFUSION OF AIMS” and is reproduced here in this two part series of the article:
“It is not too difficult to understand contemporary architecture from the point of view of its roots.
The Architectural problem of the 19th century was a search for a new style. Some believed that architecture was merely a problem of form and that the architectural forms of the past may ultimately determine the forms of the day.
Others were equally sure that new forms could be invented out of nothing.
The non-believers in either style understood that style though expressed in forms is also an expression of the forces of its time, spiritual and material, of the structures possible and applied, and of the particular needs of man – spiritual and material.
The forces, spiritual and material which dominate an age, of necessity find expression in architecture .it is therefore not surprising that contemporary architecture has not developed out of ecclesiastical building forms as was the case in Ancient Greece or in the Middle Ages of Europe.
The architectural development of our day and age has quite naturally, been influenced by the building types characteristic of this age, public buildings office building, industrial buildings and housing developments.
These building types developed slowly but they determined the architectural character of our fast growing cities, the materialism of our age and the level of technology that our age has attained.
In the 19th century the lack of directive ideas and general aims gave rise to two contradictory forces: progress and Romanticism.
Progress was the spirit of the industrial age, a result of exploitation it seemed without limit.
Romanticism was a reaction against the spirit, born of an impulse to escape from the impact of industry into an unreal dream world.
The class between the two forces resulted in chaos reflected in the decline of Architecture and in the disorder of cities.
At the same time new materials and new structures came into use – steel first and then concrete, and subsequently the combination of the two as rein-forced concrete.
The architectural consequences were striking and dramatic.
The new structure built out of these materials by their very nature is different from those built of traditional stone.
They were inherently opposed to the prevailing romantic architectural concept.
These new structures were accepted at first because they made possible an increase in room space, reduction in building weight and consequently an increase in building height.
But for a time architects insisted that new structural elements be invisible.
Architecture became mere decoration and buildings were indiscriminately covered with all styles of Ornament.
Cities were lavishly decorated with monumental buildings, each in a different style.
A king of pseudo-symbolism came into being, each style stood for a certain stereotype. Parliament buildings were built in classic medium to symbolize democracy.
City halls were built in Gothic medium to symbolize the freedom of medieval city from feudalism.
Libraries, museums, universities and other institutions of learning were built in the medium of the Renaissance to symbolise humanity and education.
Operas were built in the Baroque to symbolize the age of great music.
Despite this mix up in ideals some architects like Carl Friedrich Schinkel were quick to point out that new and necessary building types could be developed.
When asked what the ideal of architecture was, Schinkel answered “The ideal of architecture is realized when a building is built in accordance with its purpose and when it is physically as well as spiritually in harmony with it, as a whole and in all its parts”.
According to him to make structure and form identical and bring them into harmony with each other is one of the aims of our age.
This directness and identity of structure and form so impressively expressed in the works of potters, weavers and gold-smiths can also be present in new buildings coming into being.
As these buildings are new in type and serve a new in type and serve a new function they had no prototypes. They have been realized and built without the influence from existing precedents and hence express their own meaning and purpose arising not only from reason and thinking but also from creativity.
Whereas in England the rejuvenation of architecture was inspired by writings of John Ruskin, the work of William Morris and the Arts and crafts movement, on the European continent it was the architects themselves who tried to lift their profession out of the mediocre sphere to style limitation.
They were academic architects but they were striving to free themselves to some degree from the prevailing historical architecture.
Their work was strongly influenced by the purposes of the buildings, the materials available, the technology and construction possible.
They were aiming at the essentials of architecture.
Their approach however had the inherent weakness in that it was theoretical in approach. (To be continued next week) Comments 0955 789960.