Resilient environments vs. resilient architects : creativity, practice and education

Abstract

Within the paradigm of ―Resilient Built-environments‖, in order for Architecture to be resilient, ―Resilience‖ should be identified as an essential component of the Architect‘s notion of creativity. In much simpler terms, ―Resilient Built-Environment‖ should necessarily be a by-product of the ―Resilient Architect‖. The inherent influence of individualistic notions of creativity upon the practice had intensified the dichotomy between Theory and Practice, unless the notion of ―Resilience‖ is identified as an integral component of the Architect‘s notion of creativity. Analysing the architectural position is an ideal way of understanding the Architect‘s notion of creativity, therefore,in exploring the notion of ―Resilience‖ and the ―Resilient Architect‖ within the Sri Lankan platform, the Architectural Positions of two renowned Architects; Geoffrey Bawa and Valentine Gunasekara were explored and analysed. The Architectural Positions of both the architects asserted specific rules and methodologies adopted within the process of problem solving that had subsequently led to a traceable language/pattern within their Architecture. The dominance of such rules within the practice could be detrimental to adaptation of theories/notions, such as ―Resilience‖ and the formation of the ―Resilient Architect‖, unless methodologies itself are flexible, robust, despite rigidity, or else the notion of ―Resilience‖ should exist in the form of a methodological rule.