In the vernacular: On the architecture of the National Museum of Australia

This Article does not have an abstract.

Traditional architecture in the Pacific

Architecture of the Pacific covers a region of more than third of the earth’s surface. The sparse Pacific population spreads over some 30 000 islands, which graduate in size from small atolls to the largest island, Australia, a continent. Pacific architecture can be studied as four cultural units: Micronesia, Polynesia, Melanesia, and Australasia (Australia and New Zealand). While many of the islands of Micronesia lie above the Equator, the remaining Pacific islands are in the southern hemisphere. With the exception of Australia, most of the islands have a warm and humid tropical climate with high rainfalls and lush vegetation. Some islands lie in the cyclonic and earthquake belts. Two distinct racial groups settled the region. The indigenous people, the Micronesians, Melanesians, Polynesians, Australian Aborigines and New Zealand Maoris, migrated from Asia thousands of years ago. The second group, the recent immigrants, were Europeans, who occupied the region during the last two centuries, and pockets of Asians brought in by colonial administrations as labourers during the early twentieth century.

The myth of the nation: Historiography of New Zealand architecture since 1907

This paper considers the relationship between the recent historiography (of the last quarter century) of “New Zealand architecture” and the historical notion of “New Zealand-ness” invoked in contemporary architecture. It argues that a more recent programmatic uptake of post-War discussions on national identity and regional specificity has fed the tendencies of practicing architects to defer to history in rhetorical defences of their work: the beach-side mansion as a contemporary expression of the 1950s bach; a formal modernism divorced from the social discourse adherent to the historical moment that it “restates”; and so on. The paper will consider instances in the historiography of New Zealand architecture where historians have compounded, consciously or accidentally, a problem that is systemic to the uses made by architects of historical knowledge (in the most general examples), identifying the difficulties of relying upon the tentative conclusions of an under-studied field in developing principles of contemporary architectural practice under the banners of New Zealand-ness, regionalism, or localism, or with reference to icons of New Zealand architectural history. At the heart of this paper is a reflection on historiographical responsibility in presenting knowledge of a national past to an audience that is eager to transform that knowledge into principles of contemporary production. What, the paper asks, is the historical basis for speaking of a New Zealand architecture? Can we speak of a national history of architecture distinct from a regional history, or from an international history of architecture?