- The document discusses Frank Lloyd Wright's essay "In the Cause of Architecture" which critiques a lack of integrity in contemporary architects. Wright argues integrity should be given to all aspects of a building. - Wright also predicts the end of architectural styles and a rise in individualistic expressions as architecture becomes more democratic. While his prediction was partially correct, debates around sincerity and integrity still remain. - The author questions if pursuing integrity is itself an act of integrity, and whether strictly following philosophies limits one's own honest self-expression. They believe true integrity comes from manifesting one's own primal attachment to a specific form.

1. In the Cause of Architecture
Frank LloydWrightinhisessay “In the Cause of Architecture”decriesthe apparentlackof integrity
architectsof hiscontemporariesgive towardsbuildings.Integrity –orhow one treatsand acknowledges
elementswithhonestyandprinciple–accordingtohimshouldbe giventoall aspectsof a building.
In thisessay, Wrightobservesandpredictsthe endof the “architectural style”,witharchitecture being
democratized,andindividualisticexpressionsblooming.He predicts(somewhatrightfully) thatwe will
neversee the great uniformityof previousstyles. Thisisalsoanexpressionof integrity:noone isputting
on a façade,and one can finallyembrace itsactual self.
Thoughwrittenmore thana hundredyearsago,thisessay still ringsthroughtoday. Wright’sprediction
aboutthe endof style didcome (partially) intofruition,andtodaywe see more thaneverthe
celebrationof individualityinthe designof buildings.However,the aspectof sincerityandintegrityis
still quite debatable. We still see rowsuponrowsof pastiche house designs,formsseemingly pushing
the definitionof outrageousness,andcookie-cutter,impersonal skyscrapers.
One mustalso askif the pursuitof integrity isinitself an actof integrity. Withthe proliferationof the
internetloweringthe barriertoentryforarchitecture,we canbegintosee the clientnotas the
commissioner,butasthe designer.Andif sucha clientdesiresahouse builtinanextinctage ina
countrya thousandmilesaway,howcanone truthfullycommentonthe integrityof hisdesire?Likewise,
if one religiouslyfollowsthe philosophyof Wright,Modernismorwhoevergreatmaster,doeshe not
lose the integrityof hisowndesire due tothe suppressionbythe philosophy’s“laws”?
In myopinion,the veryexercise of definingwhat“architecture hasintegrity”isacontradiction.By
holdinguparchitecture toa definition,we define anultimatelyarbitraryandpseudoscientificsetof
ruleswhichlimitsandconstrainsthe mosthonest.
I believethatineachindividualthere existsabasal andprimal attachmentto a specificform, andonlyit
isin the struggle toreveal andphysicallymanifestthisformcanone trulysaytheyare designingwith
integrity.Wrighthassought(unsuccessfully)todefinesuchaform, andin thishas calledintodoubtthe
integrity of hisownwork.

2. Eyes of the Skin
Juhaini Pallasmaainthis readingputsintothe questionthe prevalenceof the sense of sightoverother
senses,andmaintainsthatall ourfive senses(andmanymore dependingonperspective)shouldnotbe
ignored.Architecture isamulti-sensoryexperience,andthe authormaintainsapositionthatthe
architecture of hiscontemporaryhasa tendencytoprioritize sight,andlose the tactilityof touch,the
echoesof soundand the muskinessof smell. Withthis,the authorthenmaintainsthatthe moderncity
isone of “sensorydeprivation”andthatthe oldercityis one of “sensoryengagement”.
However,isnotcallingamoderncitydeprivedof sensoryengagementiscontradictoryof the author’s
previousposition?A moderncity(sayBrasilia) definitelyhasavastlydifferentsuiteof sensory
engagementtothe oldercities(sayFlorence),andthe preference of whichisdefinitelysubjective.
Different,butmostdefinitelynotabsent.Whilethe authorstartsthe readingbychallengingthe
establishedandpreconceivednotionof the prioritizationof the sightoverthe othersense (andthis
phenomenonisprevalentnotjustinarchitecture),he hasnoproblemputtingforwardother
preconceivedmyths,chiefly, thatthe moderncityissomehow inferiorinsensoryperception.
The readingfurthercontinueswiththe analysisof artin general,withthe authorclaiming justaswe can
sense temperature inpaintings,sotoowe can sense muchmore than sightinarchitecture.Architecture
isnot justan isolatedcollectionof visual patterns,butisultimatelyawhole orchestraof sensations.
In myopinion,the readingheavilyimpliesthatthissortof experience canonlybe found,orbe foundto
be “pleasurable”,onlyif itwasdesignedwell,preferablybyanarchitect.Butdo we not experience the
same thinginfactories?Inslums?Inpowerplants?Placesdefinitelynotdesignedbyarchitects.We even
findthese inplacesnotdesignedatall!Incavesandbeachesstill we canfindparallels.Realityseemsto
implythese sensationsare aresultof posthoc rationalizations.Architectsdoamplifyandheightenthese
sensorysuites,buttoimplythat only architecture cando so isinherentlyfalseandimplieselitism.

3. Critical Regionalism,Parts3 and 4
KennethFrampinthisreadingof Critical Regionalismpointsoutanimportantbutyetoften
misunderstooddistinctionof the Critical Regionalistmovement:thatthisstrategy’spurposeistoinvoke
architectural elementsthatare derived fromthe uniquenessof the site.The keyhere isthe derivation
process,as itentirelyseparatesthismovementfromjustplainresurrectionof the old.Thatisreferredto
as “Populism”,inwhichthe importance of the formliesnotwithinitsmerits,butbyitsassociationwith
an often-delusional past.
However,itisveryunfortunate tosee Populismbeingafar more pervasive practice today.Itisnot
difficulttofindmassivehousingdevelopmentsfeaturingformsfroma non-existenteraandfaraway
place. It certainlydoesn’thelpwhenone namessuchneighbourhoodsoutrageouslypompousnames
like WindsororTudor. This act of populismextendsnotonlyfromthe demagogic(andso-called
uncultured) tendenciesof the general populace butalsotobuildingsof national importance! (Muzium
Negaraand National Palace) These buildingscertainlydoshow theirregional qualities,butcruciallylacks
the critical and derivative aspectof design.
In myopinion,Malaysiathisactof PopulisminMalaysiadoesnotactuallyinvolve ourarchitectural
heritage,butratheritis of a more foreignaffair.
Thus, I wouldlike toextendthe definitionof Populismtoalsoinclude the adoptionof architectural
“trends”.There existssuchgrassisgreenerattitude amongpeopletothinkthatsomehow the Modernist
tendenciesof flatroofs,rectangularformsare universally superiortothe local formsinall aspects
includingclimaticresponse,thusdefiningittobe evenmore regional andthusmore desirable.
Developersknow this,andthisisreflectedinthe mostcontemporarydevelopments.
Framp iscertainlyrightinhowperceptiongovernssuchbehavior.Peopleperceive certainarchitectural
propertiesasreflective of a“goldenage”,“the goodoldtimes”or beingculturally superior,and
naturallywill seektocreate suchpropertiesdespite how deludedthe saidperception.