Three Ideas of Emptiness: Structural Biases Towards Isolation, Separation and Absence in the 1979 Australian Parliament House Competition Brief

Tipene, L

Three Ideas of Emptiness: Structural Biases Towards Isolation, Separation and Absence in the 1979 Australian Parliament House Competition Brief

Tipene, L

Permalink

Publisher:: Taylor and Francis Group
Publication Type:: Journal Article
Citation:: Fabrications: the journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, Australia and New Zealand, 2023, 32, (2)
Issue Date:: 2023-05-01

Closed Access

	Filename	Description	Size
	Three Ideas of Emptiness Structural Biases Towards Isolation Separation and Absence in the 1979 Australian Parliament House Competition Brief.pdf	Published version	22.98 MB	Adobe PDF	View/Open

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Closed Access

This item is closed access and not available.

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Tipene, L https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0928-3839
dc.date.accessioned	2023-05-02T07:17:53Z
dc.date.available	2023-03-07
dc.date.available	2023-05-02T07:17:53Z
dc.date.issued	2023-05-01
dc.identifier.citation	Fabrications: the journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, Australia and New Zealand, 2023, 32, (2)
dc.identifier.issn	1033-1867
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/170180
dc.description.abstract	The 1979 competition brief for Australia’s Parliament House has been described as an exceedingly complex, bureaucratic document. Its 170 pages summarise site and user data in tremendous detail. Yet, curiously offer little information about Australia’s democratic values and guiding principles. The absence of this information is significant as it inhibits discourse on architecture's capacity to enact the democratic practices of the Australian people in built form. This essay compares the 1979 brief to the parliamentary reports from which it was developed. Through amending, rephrasing and reframing earlier content, the brief is shown to introduce three structural biases: towards the isolation of site, the separation of interior activities and the absence of emphasis on democratic values. These biases established real and significant pressures for competition entrants on how to conceptualise and design Australia’s most significant, most anticipated, architectural emblem of its democratic identity. In this historical instance, this essay argues, what preceded the representation of power in Australia’s parliamentary architecture were moves to evade the representation of Australian democracy in the brief, which exacerbated a different type of power: the power over what to include and exclude.
dc.language	en
dc.publisher	Taylor and Francis Group
dc.relation.ispartof	Fabrications: the journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, Australia and New Zealand
dc.relation.isbasedon	10.1080/10331867.2023.2190686
dc.rights	info:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccess
dc.subject	1201 Architecture, 1901 Art Theory and Criticism, 2202 History and Philosophy of Specific Fields
dc.title	Three Ideas of Emptiness: Structural Biases Towards Isolation, Separation and Absence in the 1979 Australian Parliament House Competition Brief
dc.type	Journal Article
utslib.citation.volume	32
utslib.for	1201 Architecture
utslib.for	1901 Art Theory and Criticism
utslib.for	2202 History and Philosophy of Specific Fields
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Design, Architecture and Building
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Design, Architecture and Building/School of Architecture
utslib.copyright.status	closed_access	*
pubs.consider-herdc	true
dc.date.updated	2023-05-02T07:17:49Z
pubs.issue	2
pubs.publication-status	Published online
pubs.volume	32
utslib.citation.issue	2

Abstract:

The 1979 competition brief for Australia’s Parliament House has been described as an exceedingly complex, bureaucratic document. Its 170 pages summarise site and user data in tremendous detail. Yet, curiously offer little information about Australia’s democratic values and guiding principles. The absence of this information is significant as it inhibits discourse on architecture's capacity to enact the democratic practices of the Australian people in built form. This essay compares the 1979 brief to the parliamentary reports from which it was developed. Through amending, rephrasing and reframing earlier content, the brief is shown to introduce three structural biases: towards the isolation of site, the separation of interior activities and the absence of emphasis on democratic values. These biases established real and significant pressures for competition entrants on how to conceptualise and design Australia’s most significant, most anticipated, architectural emblem of its democratic identity. In this historical instance, this essay argues, what preceded the representation of power in Australia’s parliamentary architecture were moves to evade the representation of Australian democracy in the brief, which exacerbated a different type of power: the power over what to include and exclude.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/170180