The city is redundant: it repeats itself so that something will stick in the mind. …
Memory is redundant: it repeats signs so that the city can begin to exist.
Italo Calvino, “Invisible Cities”, Harvest Book, 1974: 19.
Take a look at these series of pictures below. They are taken from the point of view of a passenger car running at 20-30 kilometer per hour. Can you see where RCTI is?
It’s on picture #3, with entrance after the tree.
If you can’t see it, it’s because the building is indistinguishable and the signage is hidden by the tree. If you are driving alone, and you don’t particularly looking for it, slow down considerably, turn your attention from the traffic in front of you, and have 20/20 vision, you will definitely miss it.
And this explains why, after passing the same route from home to the university every week for the past two years, only recently I know exactly where RCTI is.
I have encountered similar problems when looking for particular buildings I’ve never been in Jakarta. Perhaps the advertising agencies got it better than architects. In this immense city maneuverable only by cars, architectural design will have to take into account the speed of the car, the signage system of the building, and the angle of vision of the drivers.
10 comments:
I know where it is. I used to go there every single day for 11 years. That place is special for me :-)
can't say ditto for me ;)
interesting quote you have there... so if something keeps repeating itself, it will begin to exist? interesting :)
btw i have no idea which part of the city the pictures were taken
in the nondescript environment of jakarta, it's difficult indeed to tell where we are (with few exceptions like the sudirman-thamrin corridor).
this is located by the kebun jeruk toll entrance, from graha medika hospital.
Speaking of sign(s), I recall one night, over a good coffee, I'd been lectured by a friend of mine, a post-mo student, on Saussure's idea: a sign as a cooperation between signifier and signified, while the latter two might be unrelated. I didn't understand what on earth he's talking about, until he pointed out Umberto Eco's William Baskersville's adventure.
Back to RCTI, the sign will always be poor, unless one has a strong signified, a mental conception, a special feel, to be represented by the signifier.
My question: what's the purpose of the project of making clear, immortalized, (urban space) sign for everyone, since we might not share the same mental conception (or interest) in mind?
My elementary reading of sign and the signified and signifier comes mostly from Roland Barthes. I was not aware that Eco’s “Name of the Rose” has something to do with signs! But then again, I must say I didn’t enjoy reading it. Can you elaborate? (I am currently reading his “Mysterious Flame of Queen Loana”, which I find a lot more engaging. I think I’ll do a post about this.)
I think there should be some level of clarity in navigation of (urban) space. Your question suggests that this should not be applicable to all, which I agree with. It’s just that I find Jakarta does not have enough level of clarity as a city. FX Harsono, a curator and visual artist, wrote an essay for Imagining Jakarta (in Bahasa) in relation to this.
This particular RCTI example may not be a good example in relation to the clarity in navigating an urban space, as my aim is not to immortalize RCTI (I am not affiliated to it nor am I a fan) ;). I am interested in this because one influential urban theorist Kevin Lynch in his classic “Image of the City” talked about visual landmarks that help creating mental images of a city for its citizens.
Jakarta seems to defy the elements he mentioned in the above link. I’ve often heard about RCTI mentioned as a landmark, and I knew it should be located around my route. But I didn’t know where it was until recently. Likewise with what people refer to as Perempatan Coca Cola. I still don’t know where exactly that is. So Jakartans seem to have different kind of landmarks. Some are visually noticeable and/or spatially prominent (like Monas, Semanggi, Pancoran, etc.), but then there are what I find rather obscure landmarks like this particular RCTI.
Perhaps it’s because Lynch’s experiences of the cities were on foot, while mine’s of Jakarta has been mostly by car.
What? You did not enjoy reading Eco's The Name of Rose? :-). The book shows attempts to break the sign and find the signified, taking the tale of Father William revealing Aristotelian content in Church's scriptures/ symbols. The suspense arises when the signifier (the representation) for making a sign turns out very much unrelated to the signified.
This, however, is more on semiotics of (sacred) text, not urban sign. And The Rose is a good piece since it is set against backdrop of well-thought western philosophy development --and history of church.
On the business of making urban sign, don't you think precision or clarity will come at the cost of richness of the fact? I recall, the old map is less precise, but usually richer in narration --and more interesting. And that is why I love living in Jakarta despite its chaotic signs. Here, you can always observe the hidden order, and to get that, what you can do is simply living in it a bit longer.
On Lynch's imagining city, I think he comes with material (five elements) before idea (mental map). What about the other way around --idea before material? I mean, if RCTI, for some good reasons, is very important for me and occupy significant location in my mind (idea), I would construct my physical signs referring to that place --which might be not the case for others.
I could find The Rose as a slow and rather painful read regardless of its importance right? You sound rather offended … ;) I was traveling at the time, and I brought it along (so you ought to give me credit for this!). It could be a bad choice given the circumstances. And given my poor memory, I suppose I should read it again to find the depth of signs you’re talking about.
Going back to the urban sign, I rather disagree with you in terms of precision or clarity can only come at the expense of the richness of the fact. New York City has a very clear system of grid that on map it may seem like one area is no different than the others. But experiencing the city feels nothing like it. It’s one of the most vibrant cities in the world, with rich and distinct neighborhoods. But then again, I may be brainwashed. Some of the most beautiful design in the world, in my opinion, is very precise, clear, /and/ rich in detail.
Yes, you’re right about Lynch (don’t tell me you actually read his book!), and that Jakarta should be figured starting from the idea before the material. I have begun to construct this Jakarta, and I would eventually ask people to create their mental map of the city. Those who don’t drive in Jakarta are probably the most interesting group. Some of the candidates I know are still very confused about how places fall into actual map, even after years of living in this city. I should list you as a candidate for whenever the time comes ;)(which could take a while though, depending on what I will be doing in the next year).
"...The next day, there I was, without any period of adjustment, on the corner of Fifty-Eighth Street and Fifth Avenue. I walked for a long time under an icy sky. It was Sunday in January 1945, a deserted Sunday. I looked for New York and couldn't find it. It seems to be retreating in front of me, like a ghost city, as I walked down an avenue that struck me as coldly featureless and unoriginal. What I was looking for, no doubt, was a European city..."
This was Sartre who failed to find New York at his first attempt, because as he realized it, he has a (wrong) presupposition about the way a city should look like. He wrote about cities beautifully in his essays selection, Modern Times.
The same problem might occur in looking at Jakarta, if you start from a certain presupposition, like comparing her with London,or Singapore. Jakarta has its own rule, and the fact that mobility of its citizen is high should tell us that there are certain agreed signs.
Jakarta is pretty much like a French Impressionism painting. At glance it looks like blobs of spit, it is not too precise, yet it can be beautiful. And when you saw one in, say, Smithsonian, you can always spot that as a French Impressionism school.
For Jakarta, she belongs to developing country's big cities school, along with Manila, Bangkok, Sao Paulo, and Mexico City; or perhaps New York, but at the period of Gangs of New York, the film.
ps: No, I haven't read Kevin Lynch :-)
You must have been born in Jakarta to find it so beautiful! ;) I find it easier to maneuver and understand Bangkok rather than Jakarta.
But ok, chances are I will live in Jakarta for a rather long period of time, so I should be open to experience it as is and wait until these spits turn into those impressionist stroke you talked about ;)
Have Sartre's Modern Times in my bookcase. Haven't got the chance to read it though.
Post a Comment