Talk:Architecture of Indonesia/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Architecture of Indonesia. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

New article

I am surprised it has not been written earlier. But perhaps this simply reflects the poor representation of Architecture in general on Wikipedia; given its significance as one of the greatest and most important of human endeavours, Wikipedia falls well short here. Back to this article:

There is still much to do – it’s no where near complete in terms of quality or quantity. Whole sections don’t even have any text but I put the headings there to encourage other editors. I hope to do a lot more too.

To Do:

More research: the current info is based on my own knowledge, and bit of reading (listed), but it needs deeper and broader sources. Needs in-line cites but I can do a bit of that.
Expansion: please start with the empty section headings.
Lead: needs expansion too, but depends on filling in the other sections
Photos:

I want to create a gallery of images at the bottom. If a picture does tell a 1000 words, it tells 1 million with architecture
I will be contacting various websites seeking use of their photos – there is some truly beautiful work out there, for the gallery and to replace the mediocre pics there now
I will put some of my own there eventually.

External links: I couldn’t think of any, but maybe other eds have ideas
Links to this article: please link to this article if you see an opportunity.

That’ll do for now, feel free to add to the list, or better, do one of the tasks. Regards --Merbabu 06:14, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

A good book that I think has generally covered major points and historical timelime of Indonesian Architecture is Architecture by Gunawan Tjahjono, et al. (eds.) from Indonesian Heritage Series , Archipelago Press (1998), ISBN981-3018-32-1.

The book is beautifully illustrated and a definite resource on Indonesian architecture. -- Bulao 13:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

As are the others in the same series - well worth consulting.. unfortunately expensive and best consulted in academic libraries (where they are usually) SatuSuro 13:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the organization of this topic into categories that are not mutually exclusive (Religious architecture, Traditional vernacular, Palace, Colonial, and Post-independence architecture) has made addition and expansion of articles difficult (at least for me). For example, an article about Salman Mosque a seminal work of Modern architecture by architect Achmad No'eman would fall into Religious architecture category, yet putting it under Post-independence architecture category is fitting as it would highlight its role in the modernization of mosque typology. Many other buildings will pose similar problems: there are many architecturally-important mosques, churches and palaces built during the colonial era that will baffle contributors as to where put in the present categorization.

As such, I propose this topic be reorganized. The categories used by Tjahjono, et al. (eds.) in Indonesian Heritage Series - Architecture is a good start. Based on Tjahjono's, I propose the following categories:

Traditional vernacular architecture (local-vernacular buildings).
Indonesia's Classical heritage (the temples, etc. from the Hindu-Buddhist era)
Colonial architecture
Early modern architecture (17th to 19th centuries)
Post-independence architecture. --(Bulao (talk) 03:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC))

I think these are broadly good suggestions. Perhaps the order of the 1st two you suggest should be swapped around. and, what is the distinction between "early modern architecture" and "colonial architecture"? I had not intended that this article concentrate in any detail on a specific building, rather it remain general and focus on styles, eras, types, etc. brief 1 sentence Mentions linked to articles of specific notable examples is if course fine. Oh, and what about the palace architecture section? It could perhaps be chopped up and spread between your era-based structure. --Merbabu (talk) 04:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Swapping the first two categories is good. I also agree that the "early modern architecture" and "colonial architecture" categories are confusing and they should be kept as "colonial architecture" only. The distinctions between the two are largely theoretical and useful only to architectural historians to identify the advent of 'Modern Architecture' in the 17th to 19th centuries. I guess yes, if we use this era-based structure, the palace as well as other building types will be put according to their era. Surakarta Palace (partly designed by Dutch architect Thomas Karsten) for instance, will be part of "Colonial architecture", while Pagaruyung Palace will be part of "Traditional architecture". ---(Bulao (talk) 23:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)).

Palace layout design and architecture is a definite separate - now that there is so much about the Solo and Yogya palaces easily available - or otherwise a sep article if necessary.. just a suggestion Satu Suro 05:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

In keeping with the original intent of this article mentioned by Merbabu above, I agree with keeping this article broad; with links to separate more specific articles such as the palaces. I am thinking of listing buildings in each category for others to expand in separate articles. --(Bulao (talk) 00:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC))

What a great start!

The missing article has created and it looks good. Thanks to Merbabu. I'll try to join in later. — Indon (reply) — 10:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't know anything about this interesting topic, but the article is great, and a wonderful addition to Wikipedia. Thank you to its major contributors, and congratulations on your efforts and good work! Aridd (talk) 16:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Question

So where do the propositions that Borobudur was originally hindu - and then was appropriated by buddhists go - here (where the assertion is straight forward for buddhist only) or do we put it in bodobudur - problem of general asserttions that have tricky bits in the background - and then the plethora of labels for borobudur - temple, etc etc - when it is considered by vajrayana oriented academics to be basically a large stupa - which removes the monument temple label as stupa is a well covered item in tibetan/indian vajaryana tradition. Anyone? SatuSuro 10:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it belongs here - no matter how true. If it was indeed originally Hindu - and I have heard that assertion - it's "Hinduness" is no where near as notable/significant as its "Buddhistness". If you can source it well then put it in the main article. I guess it is like allowing that guy to leave his long rant about CIA involvement in 1965/66 - doesn't matter how true, there are other places for it. --Merbabu 11:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Well - the issue is that there are parts of indonesian culture that have issues that some academics have brought up and which need a place at some point (ok there are pages for loopy ideas I know) need to be placed somewhere! SatuSuro 11:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, by all means place them - i think Borobudur is better home. but you do agree that here's not the place for an academic discussion on the history of Borobudur? :) I see this article as more the place for someone who knows zip about indonesia. Indonesia Architecture 101. maybe I have some info on the Hindu/Buddhist question. --Merbabu 12:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Ooops - yes this should be actually at candi - as it applies to at least boro, + and at least three candi near prmbnn. SatuSuro 12:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Elevating the article into good article?

Is there an attempt to elevate this article into good or featured article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.127.195.146 (talk) 10:52, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Austronesian people?

You say this is referenced, but referenced to what?

Not withstanding that it's not strictly true, the implication is that common ancestry influences architectural similarities, but with 'common ancestry' unexplained, it's very misleading. The Javanese came to Java from the Philippines 3000 years ago or so, the Batak came to Sumatra from Burma-Thailand 3000 years ago.

So what does this tell us about their architecture? Building Type A and Building Type B were both built by brown people? Sumbuddi (talk) 00:43, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

It's from Dawson in the ref list. Ie, people of Austronesian ancestry have a common architectural thread. Your second paragraph suggests you are debating the validating of the term “Austronesian”. Good luck with that – maybe start arguing that at Austronesian peoples – but that’s not what this article is about.

Personally, I don’t think your last paragraph is worth bothering about. Maybe someone else might comment for you. --Merbabu (talk) 01:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Well I don't have access to that source to read what it actually says, so....

Maybe it's something like this, from The Oxford Companion to Architecture: "Given the relatively recent origin and arbitrary boundaries of Indonesia, it is unlikely that the term 'Indonesian architecture' would be useful ... beyond the past half-century. However, most of the several hundred distinct linguistic, ethnic and cultural groups linked by Dutch colonial rule and bound together as Indonesia share an Austronesian ancestry originating in Taiwan (c. 4000BC). Growing from these ancient roots, the story of Indonesian architecture has been one of syncretic adaptation of foreign influences: China and India (AD c. 200-), Islam (c. 1150-) and Europe (c. 1509-).

Now that's actually accurate, allowing only that 'most' Indonesian ethnic groups are Austronesian, and also gives a timescale.Sumbuddi (talk) 01:27, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Austronesisn ancestary is clearly a (the?) major factor in Rumah Adat (as it is the rest of Indonesia's cultural make-up). Your removal of its mention is a major ommission - kind of like removing mention of England from the History of Australia. I don't have the source in front of me (I can tonight though), however, from memory if anything the source was stronger on Austronesianness. --Merbabu (talk) 01:42, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

That quote from The Oxford Companion highlight another reoccurring issue with standardised article names. Wouldn't be more accurate if the lead would start with The architecture of Indonesia, given that the scope of this article seems to be the history of architecture on the territory of present day Indonesia?--Elekhh (talk) 01:46, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

"Architecture of Indonesia" makes sense. There may have been a reason for "Indonesian architecture" but I can't think of it now!. --Merbabu (talk) 01:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

PS - i was very bold and moved it. If anyone disagrees, an admin will have to undo it. --Merbabu (talk) 01:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The reason might have been some kind of standardisation related to Category:Architecture by country done in 2005 despite no full consensus, however the main article in most of those categories follows the "Architecture of ..." format (i.e. Architecture of the United States, Architecture of Australia, etc), which just makes much more sense. --Elekhh (talk) 02:26, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Architecture of Indonesia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:45, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Architecture of Indonesia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070614232909/http://www.wiratman.co.id/ximages/architecture.pdf to http://www.wiratman.co.id/ximages/architecture.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:09, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Architecture of Indonesia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110810164644/http://203.77.194.71:83/isvs-4-1/paper-dump/full-papers/28.pdf to http://203.77.194.71:83/isvs-4-1/paper-dump/full-papers/28.pdf
Corrected formatting/usage for http://archnet.org/library/places/places.tcl?country_code=id

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:36, 8 July 2017 (UTC)