Vernacular Architecture by Robert Brown and Daniel Maudlin A dialectic on different interpretations of what Vernacular Architecture really is. Considered as other during time to becoming the past two decades as a mean of reference,posterity, accumulation and continuity in Architecture. Vernacular is seen these days not only synonym of traditional architecture but also associate to contemporary architecture that reflect any style. To certain critics the term Vernacular Architecture ( V A ) is associated to a specific category of people from which constructs have been made during time and space with no real knowledge of architecture, and later transferred from one generation to another.

Vernacular also referred to great human values and cultural impact of specific people. and portrayed a political explanation to enforce national and sub national identities. A definition not universally make it the everyday in term of buildings during the 18 Century to become contemporary from the anonymous mass produced trailers to the suburban condo development, per Robert Venturi say. -The every day : Vacant lots, back of buildings, underside of bridges, industrial structure, power station.. - From traditional to everyday means a broad mixture of unrelated buildings, but still not considered Architecture by Architects and Architecture historians. - Considered as other : Vernacular is not Architecture, nor part of Architecture practice, low,neither of a source of learning , inspiration nor critique compared to contemporary Architecture.

Categorization= narrow,fixed definitions and rigid. They believe by defining vernacular to specific cultural entity already put barrier to the hold-all category of one interpretation to the other. Meanwhile, other critics think Architecture, Art and Vernacular and Other suggest two 2 instincts. Nikolaus Pevsner thinks everything that encloses space for human being is a building and the term architecture applies to buildings designed to aesthetic appeal. Instinct 1 : Conceptual art Instinct 2 : Merely inhabitable space. But Pevsner also believes transition forms are not architecture at all in regards to Vernacular . However, Rudofsky is the one to introduce traditional buildings within architecture and understand vernacular as an academic field that should be be studied as forms in Architecture. He believes their form and function can be also an understanding of cultural impact or human dimension.

Understanding Architecture not only as who enter the practice but also of what it is constituted,has shifted for the past two decades to understand Vernacular A as part of Architecture : a search of primitive architecture rather than traditional. Example to this logic is the hut system considered as shelter that instead conveys and connect the dots between Vernacular and Contemporary Architecture. Traditional and modernity by Gottfried Semper advocates no boundary but instead sees

vernacular and contemporary as a mean of reference , posterity, accumulation and continuity.