To zi ken hts1

CLASSICAL

ISH The pre-1942 singapore house and

its p l ac e in c l a s s i c i s m toh TuTor:

Zi Ricardo

Ken pereira

L

ike most former colonies, Singapore has its share of ‘classical’ buildings. While some of them are strictly and correctly classical, looking like something transplanted from Rome to London before finally being flung down in the tropics, a great many are instead ‘classical-ish’. This

suffix ‘ish’ is probably the defining feature of the architecture of the 19th century, with the question of style raging on in Europe, at the start of which the fancy-dress ball of architecture is in full swing.1 Although the essay focuses on this phenomenon in Singapore, the phenomenon in itself is not unique; architecture seems to create these situations where architecture is built in styles that are ‘not quite’ a certain thing, but convey enough of a certain style for it to still be classified classical, gothic, Romanesque, and so on. The classical buildings of the 19th century was over-concerned with styles and hence looked back to almost every phase of classical (or architectural) development2, which becomes most apparent in a situation like Singapore, where no building (unlike the UK, for example) dates from prior to the 19th century, and a riot of styles from every conceivable architectural period occurs. This is the curious situation into which this essay will delve.

While the architectural climate in the far east was far less intellectual – the stylistic debate confined to Europe – the stylistic tendencies depended on fashion and the whims of the architects and builders3, with various elements incorporated even in conjunction with vernacular features.

The architecture reflected in these houses is, on the whole, unique to the region, if not unique to Singapore, and presents a syntax using classical vocabulary not seen in the west (or outside the tropics). While the larger government buildings tend to be in a more-or-less standard colonial classicism, the private dwellings built up to the Second World War exhibit a freedom and exuberance in the use of classical detailing. This use of classicism (or the ‘ish’, if you will) creates an entirely new architecture, unique to the region.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

1 2 3

Pevsner, N. (1963). An outline of European architecture. Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin Books. p379 Summerson, J. (1966). The classical language of architecture. Cambridge: M.I.T. Press. p108 Lee, K. and Liu, G. (1988). The Singapore house, 1819-1942. Singapore: Times Editions. p67

A GLANCE AT THREE HOUSES

An interesting example is Panglima Prang, a notable (but now demolished) house built by a wealthy Chinese merchant. It is described as a European house in appearance, with Doric columns resting on tall plinths.4 (figures 1 and 2) It has a high, hipped roof and deep overhang of the eaves, extending 17 feet beyond the outer walls5. This house certainly has no European precedent, it makes use of a language that originates in Europe: the classical language, and even when used in a way unprecedented in the west, the house comes to be described as European. The house is selective about the vocabulary that it utilizes. It is selective to the point that Serlio or Palladio would be abhorred. The house has columns, yes, and they are reasonably well proportioned, but that is all: the entire entablature is absent, and bears more similarity to the temple of Vesta near the Tiber, now ruined and missing its entablature6 (figure 3). In the temple, the exceptionally tall Corinthian columns assert a nobility of form7, which in a way, can be seen in Panglima Prang. The columns that are carried around the house in two rows, the inner row being taller than the outer (and their proportions mismatched), as the roof sits directly on top of the columns. The hipped roof is of Chinese tiles, another local adaptation, and a gabled roof with pediments at either end runs parallel to the house, instead of the conventional front-facing pediment. (figure 2)

Panglima Prang was built in 1860, forty-one years after the founding of the colony.

Decades prior to its being built, there were other houses of note, built by the first trained architect resident in the colony, George Drumgold Coleman.8 Coleman’s houses built in these early years were derived mainly from the Georgian country house9; the tastes of the British in the east undoubtedly echoed those of their countrymen at home, and these houses were thus indirectly inspired by the villas of Palladio in both plan and decoration. (figures 4, 5) Influences were drawn from not only Palladio’s Quattro Libri, but also from Colen Campbell10, which resulted in a sort of ‘tropicalized’ classicism that was still very much a transplant of the purer Georgian classicism. One example of note is a house Coleman designed for a Mr. John Argyle Maxwell, a wealthy merchant. (figure 6) In its original form the house a Palladian derivative,

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

4

Lee, K. and Liu, G. (1988). The Singapore house, 1819-1942. Singapore: Times Editions. p42 ibid Summerson (1966), p49!

7 ibid 8 Lee, K. and Liu, G. (1988) p30 9 Lee, K. and Liu, G. (1988) p33 10 Beamish, J. and Ferguson, J. (1985). A history of Singapore architecture. Singapore: G. Brash. p31 5 6

with ground floor rustication and an impressive portico.11 Even among the houses that he did not design, his work held great influence and set the precedent for the subsequent houses of consequence. In addition to this, architects of the time also drew freely from the pattern books available at the time, be it the Vitruvius Britannicus or James Gibbs’ Book of Architecture12. Simply comparing Coleman’s work and Panglima Prang, one can immediately discern a vast difference between the two. In building Panglima Prang, its unnamed and now forgotten designer and builder had unknowingly created a new architecture, which is no longer the Georgian brand of Palladianism, but even within the language of columns and such, the Singapore (and related parts of Southeast-Asia) house from this period on becomes very much an architectural genre of its own.

Let us now examine another house: Mandalay villa (figure 7), built in 1902, is a two story house, with a symmetrical floor plan typical of most Chinese residences, with a large dining room on the ground floor. What is interesting about this particular house is that it is built in a style that has been termed ‘Chinese Baroque’ (this term is more commonly used to refer to Chinese shophouses built around the same period13) The exterior is richly embellished, and characterized by an uncontrolled application of the classical orders and free use of decorative motifs.14 The architects Lermit and Westerhout approached the decoration of the house with a very liberal interpretation of the classical vocabulary, placing Corinthian pilasters all over the house, at the corners, on the aedicules, numerous window treatments, some arched with fan lights, and others broad with flat tops. Elaborate eave boards decorate the eaves of the house, and an original drawing of the house calls for cast iron finials at the roof apexes.

The overall appearance of Mandalay Villa is highly decorative, and is not dissimilar to the Singapore shophouses that were built roughly around the same time (Figure 8) whose builders took the traditional southern Chinese shophouse and sought to emulate European classicism, but lacked the more subtle aesthetics in terms of proportions and ornamentation.15 There was widespread juxtaposition of Chinese motifs with fluted pilasters and Corinthian capitals, French windows and Palladian-style

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

11 Edwards, N. (1990). The Singapore house and residential life, 1819-1939. Singapore: Oxford University Press. p.27 12 Beamish, J. and Ferguson, J. (1985). p.31 13 Hong, T. (2009). Classical Architecture Through the Window of the Singapore Shophouse. PASSAGE, [online] pp.8, 9. Available at: http://www.fom.sg/Passage/2009/12shophouse.pdf [Accessed 29 Nov. 2015].

14 Lee, K. and Liu, G. (1988) p124 15 Knapp, R. (2003). Asia's old dwellings. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p126

fanlights.16 While not dissimilar in the feel of the façade ornamentation, houses like Mandalay Villa are quite distinct from the shophouse in their not being a simple adaptation of a traditional architectural form.

What makes these grander houses quite different is that they are not traditional forms in new clothes; they are inventio both inside and out.

After minimal scrutiny, one can concede that the Singapore house is an entirely new creation. No longer does it bear resemblance to the classicism of Gibbs or Campbell, neither does it recall images of the British bungalows in India. To contextualize this development in Singapore and Southeast Asia, one must also scrutinize its supposed origins: the Georgian house, and hence also the Palladian Villa.

To call the pre-WW2 Singapore houses classicalish is not inaccurate, but in the same way that they are ish, their ancestors are similarly so. In a way, the original Palladian Villas represented a novelty in both their form and the sort of classicism they embodied. Palladio, in building for the patrician class of Venice, was not unlike Coleman and his successors who were building for a new and emerging patrician class (as well as the noveau-riche) of the thriving colony. Classical architecture as we know it was also new to 16th century Venice, being heavily influenced by the east and the gothic.

THE GENERAL ISH OF CLASSICAL ARCHITECTURE

Classical architecture is usually denotes architecture which is more or less consciously derived from the principles of Greek and Roman architecture of classical antiquity, or sometimes even more specifically, from the works of Vitruvius.17

18

This definition in itself denotes that classical

architecture in itself by being more or less derived, is one big ‘ish’, with Palladio’s buildings Greek-andRoman-ish, especially since his work was regarded as usanza nuova or new manner19 at the time. For him, the classical code was only a “field of variations” and not a set of rules.20 Palladio demonstrates in his second book of the Quattro Libri that the art of composing is founded on spatial nuclei, a grammar of orders, functional devices, and on a willingness for infinite research.21 What he does to create his architecture, is he takes the elements, which he derives from his study of the remnants of the ancients, and

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Knapp, R. (2003) p128!

16

17 Fleming, John; Honour, Hugh; Pevsner, Nikolaus (1986). Dictionary of architecture (3 ed.). Penguin Books Ltd. p. 76 18 Watkin, David (2005). A History of Western Architecture (4 ed.). Watson-Guptill Publications. pp. 6–8 19 Tafuri, M. (1989). Venice and the Renaissance. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. p.136 20 Tafuri. M. (1989). p.127 21 ibid

synthesizes them into a new syntax and arrangements, and in doing so, he creates a completely new architecture that we now regard as classical, though it has far less to do with the Greeks than it does the Renaissance, hence it would be more accurately termed classicalish. In fact, the grand porticoes Palladio so generously furnished his villas with are conspicuously absent in Roman domestic architecture, but his use of them at virtually every opportunity was emulated by his British followers.22 The ish grows only stronger as continental Europe moves toward the Baroque, and the forms are augmented, curved and ornamented into something that no Roman or Greek builder would have recognized as architecture, and in so doing, the architects of the baroque create what is essentially a new architecture derived from these elements such that we would still say that it is classicalish.

In the same way, the British architects of the 17th and 18th centuries such as Inigo Jones (whose ideal was Palladio23) propagated this form of architecture, adding to the already ish and thus creating a British version of the classicalish, which can only go on to mean that the work of Wren is even more so with its baroque sensibilities, and perhaps the most classicalish of all is exemplified in the publication of the Vitruvius Britannicus in 1715, which became a lasting source of inspiration for subsequent generations of British architects, even, as we have seen earlier, in the far-flung colonies with the likes of Coleman designing Palldio-ish villas in the heat of the tropics.

Even the most studied and theoretically accurate readings of the ancients end up with some sort of ishy architecture. Take for instance Quinlan Terry’s Maitland Robinson Library (figure 9) at Downing College, Cambridge: it is an incredibly well-proportioned building, drawing its façade from the most classical of sources: the ancient Greek. It forms a ‘capriccio’ of the outstanding monuments of the acropolis.24 However, it is itself a classicalish building, for all its proportional and syntactical correctness, detailed sources historical reference and overall attractiveness, its elevation, despite the greek-revival portico, has a Georgian flavour to it. The silhouette is one of a Georgian country house, while the roof recalls Ledoux. This building reinforces the idea that no building is truly classical, but is really classicalish.

After all, the Greeks did not leave us with examples of houses, churches and libraries from which we can learn, but only their temples which are only porticoes and columns surrounding an interior cella, and does not have all the complexities of Robert Smirke’s design for the British Museum, which is as greekish as it

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Edwards, N. (1990). p.27!

22 23 24

Pevsner, N. (1963). An outline of European architecture. Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin Books. p.308 Terry, Q. (1993). Selected works. London: Acad. Ed. [u.a.]. p.121

can get. Neither did anything from the ancients consider combining portico with spire, as Gibbs did at St Martin-in-the-Fields, the classicalishyness of which would spread, even to Singapore. (figures 10, 11, 12)

“Palladian architecture, standing as the greatest achievement of humanism’s competition with Antiquity, presented itself not only as a “novelty” that Venice could assimilate only with difficulty with later novelties”25 This statement of Tafuri’s is not only applicable to Venice as it is to England, and even Singapore, since once Palladianism had taken root, it stayed firm not only against historicist readings and revivals of ‘true’ Greek or Roman styles for a significant period of time. In the Singapore case, however, the classical motifs that first appeared on these Palladianesqe houses were soon subject to rather liberal reinterpretations, as society at the time would be swept up by Victorian eclecticism, followed by the Edwardian baroque which presented itself in a somewhat coarsened manner.26

ISH ON THE INDSIDE

To return to the colonial context, Tan Kim Seng, the owner of Panglima Prang27, was a Straits Chinese or Peranakan28, sought to emulate the European way, not only in the exterior of the house but also in the interior. (figure 13) The house contained Victorian chairs and cabinets, empire-style chandeliers and mirrors in gilded and mosaic frames, and was considered to be remarkably more Victorian than the well-to-do English and other Europeans, despite their houses all having emerged from the same Anglo-Palladian mould.29 However, there are also various Chinese objets d’art scattered among the English chairs, along grand ancestral altars. It is not surprising, as the trend of the period was to emulate European ideas in regard to the manner of planning and furnishing their houses, and in the way visitors were to be received.30 Thus, despite the profusion of Chinese objects, the feel of the room is decidedly Victorian, (figure 14) and overtly European. This surely compounds the question of ish, since it would be incorrect to call this room a Victorian one, despite it looking quite like one. It is because the room is Victorianish, just as the house in which it is contained is similarly classicalish.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

25

Tafuri, M. (1989). p.128 In fact, much of the detailing is coarser than its European counterparts, in part due to the use of convict labour, but also due to the materials, as well as the general craftsmanship available.

27 Lee, K. and Liu, G. (1988), p.154 28 who were known for their adaptation and emulation of European ways, while maintaining their Chinese identity.

29 Edwards, N. (1990). p.49 30 Edwards, N. (1990). p.160 26

The same can be seen in the dining room of the house, which, apart from the ancestral altar and some Chinese porcelain, all the furniture is European.31 This is the height of the emulation of the Europeans at the time. (today of course, everything has become completely westernized and most homes have the same average fittings as any average home in any developed country) The interior of Mandalay villa has the same flavour, although less grand. (figure 15) It, too, contains various furnishings of European provenance, but with more Chinese furniture, such as Chinese chairs inlaid with mother of pearl sitting alongside pier tables with cabriole legs. We can compare both living rooms with Queen Victoria’s drawing room at Balmoral, which has a similar atmosphere, though the furnishings are undoubtedly of much better quality and provenance than the furniture exported to the far east. (figure 16) (In many cases in these houses, were European designs copied by local craftsmen using local timber)

THE QUESTION OF RIGHT OR WRONG

A word used from the mid 20th century to describe architecture that used classical elements is ‘pastiche’, which people were quick to do when one were to attempt to design buildings along traditional lines,32 which is a new concept, only arising after the second world war. The best architects of the past five centuries have constantly referred to the past, continually contributing to the vast body of architecture that we now consider great, in emulating past works. In the same way Lord Burlington designed for himself a Palladian bagno in Chiswick,33 Coleman designed Maxwell’s house, but neither can be called pastiche as they have both translated the essence of Palladio’s classicalish building into more classicalish buildings. The ish can get truly annoying once one realizes that the term ‘classical’ has become so broad when referring to architecture, and the idea that was put forward at the start of this essay, that there is a certain correct classical versus a wrong classical, is a difficult one to conclusively argue for or against, for even Summerson declares, “it is a mistake to try to define classicism”34 although he does discuss it as a language. The notion of architecture as a language necessitates the existence of a correct and incorrect, as there is in language, but from these houses that we have examined, where the classical elements and ornaments have been used to successful effect in ways that no Palladio nor Serlio would have praised,

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Lee, K. and Liu, G. (1988). p.97!

31 32 33 34

Charles, (1989). A vision of Britain. London: Doubleday. p.12 Pevsner, N. (1963).p.344 Summerson (1966), p.7

simply proves that while the system may have structure, it has no grammar35 and therefore Panglima Prang in the ‘unacceptability’ of its columns of mismatched heights, can neither be right nor wrong. It thus stands in its own right and its columns open to criticism, just as how the columns of Brunelleschi’s San Lorenzo are criticized for their lack of plinths,36 but neither would one invalidate the whole church as ‘wrong’ based on this. After all, classical architecture was not continued in an unbroken line; it had to be re-discovered, which inevitably lead to the classicalish we know as classical architecture.

ISH

In conclusion, the builders and architects of pre-1942 houses in Singapore, in their building of the various villas and bungalows there, succeeded in creating an a new architecture that was distinct from both the European influences that invariably were impressed upon the place by the colonial rulers, as well as the various Asian precedents that also had tremendous influence on them. It is therefore incorrect to look at such houses and think “these builders and architects did not know anything about classical architecture. This is surely bad architecture,” since these houses are not classical buildings, but merely classical ish. This new kind of classicalish can be considered to be in the best tradition of the classicalish buildings which preceded them in Europe and Britain, and that, for a place like Singapore, has come to hold tremendous historical significance, as they preserve not only an architecture that is unique to the place and time, but also a record of aspirations and mindsets of the time. Additionally, their existence also shines a light to classical architecture as a whole. They do not question the validity of classical architecture, for that is a pointless argument. Instead, they question the concept of authority in the classical. What the architects of these houses have done is no different in spirit to the revival of the ancient orders in Palladio’s work, nor the inventions of Gibbs or even Vanbrugh, for indeed, to be classical is to be classicalish.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

35 36

!

Scruton, R. (1979). The aesthetics of architecture. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. p.163 Battisti, E. (1981). Filippo Brunelleschi. New York: Rizzoli.

Illustrations

Figures 1 and 2: Panglima prang. Figure 1 shows the house from the front. Note the uneven spacing of the columns of the inner row, as well as the porte cochere parallel to the house instead of at a right angle. Figure 2 shows one of the courts beside the dining room, looking toward the main house

Figure 3: the temple of Vesta near the Tiber.

Figure 4: Villa Piovone, Palladio, 1778

Figure 5: Lord Herbert’s Hous, London. Colen Campbell 1723

Figure 6: Maxwell’s house, Singapore. G. D. Coleman, 1827

Figure 7: Mandalay Villa, Singapore. Lermit and Westerhout, 1902

Figure 8: Shophouses in Singapore featuring corinthian capitals, Malay-derived carved fascia boards.

Figure 9: Maitland Robinson Library, Downing College. Designed by Quinlan Terry and compelted in 1992, has the decoration of Greece, but the sihoutte of a Georgian country house

Figures 10, 11, 12: From left: James Gibbs, St Martin-in-the-Fields, London 1721-26. St Andrew’s Church, Calcutta, Brun, Curried and Company, 1815. Church of St Gregory the Illuinator, G.D. Coleman, 1835

Figure 13: Panglima Prang. Interior. Note the profusion of victorian furniture and lighting juxtaposed with Chinese porcelain.

Figure 14: The dining room and ancestral hall of Panglima Prang. All the furniture is European exvept the altar and some Chinese porcelain.

Figure 15: Interior of Mandalay Villa. Noteworthy is the large sideboard, typical of houses of this sort but not usually on so grand a scale. Many of these are sometimes used as altars, but this one holds figurines of the sanxing which are figural representations of prosperity, status and longevity. The statue on the wall is another particularly interesting decoration quite Victorian in manner. The interior is quite eclectic, with two Victorian neo-gothic chairs visible, as well as a large Venetian mirror.

Figure 16: Queen Victoria’s drawing room at Balmoral.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 1.

Pevsner, N. (1963). An outline of European architecture. Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin Books.

2.

Summerson, J. (1966). The classical language of architecture. Cambridge: M.I.T. Press. p108

3.

Lee, K. and Liu, G. (1988). The Singapore house, 1819-1942. Singapore: Times Editions

4.

Beamish, J. and Ferguson, J. (1985). A history of Singapore architecture. Singapore: G. Brash

5.

Edwards, N. (1990). The Singapore house and residential life, 1819-1939. Singapore: Oxford University Press.

6.

Hong, T. (2009). Classical Architecture Through the Window of the Singapore Shophouse.

PASSAGE, [online] pp.8, 9. Available at: http://www.fom.sg/Passage/2009/12shophouse.pdf [Accessed 29 Nov. 2015].

7.

Knapp, R. (2003). Asia's old dwellings. Oxford: Oxford University Press

8.

Fleming, John; Honour, Hugh; Pevsner, Nikolaus (1986). Dictionary of architecture (3 ed.). Penguin Books Ltd.

9.

Watkin, David (2005). A History of Western Architecture (4 ed.). Watson-Guptill Publication

10. Tafuri, M. (1989). Venice and the Renaissance. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

11. Pevsner, N. (1963). An outline of European architecture. Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin Books.

12. Terry, Q. (1993). Selected works. London: Acad. Ed. [u.a.]

13. Charles, (1989). A vision of Britain. London: Doubleday.

14. Scruton, R. (1979). The aesthetics of architecture. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

15. Battisti, E. (1981). Filippo Brunelleschi. New York: Rizzoli.

PICTURE CREDITS Cover. – 16th century wall decoration by Vriese Figures 1, 2, 13 and 14. – Lee Kip Lin, Photographed by Chew Studios Figure 3. – Willy Rizo Figure 4. – Drawing by Ottavio Bertotti Scamozzi, taken from Wikimedia Commons Figure 5. – Drawing by Colen Campbell, engraved by Issac Ware Figures 6, 7 and 12. – National Museum of Singapore Figure 8. – Photograph by Lee Ho Yin Figure 9. – Drawing by Quinlan Terry Figures 10. and 11. – Photograph by A. F. Kirsting Figure 15. – Mrs. Ivy Kwa Figure 16. Public domain, taken from http://the-lothians.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/royalresidences-of-queen-victoria.html