LOTS of Assembly Required

East Asian architecture is known for its intricate detailing, particularly when it comes to the roofs. Hundreds of thousands of pieces of wood, metal, and tiles go into completing a roof, and the need to create height and grandeur, as architecture (most prominent in the roof) is a status indicator, necessitated bracketing, layering, carving, tiling, and painting on a monumental scale to create the intended effect. The assembly of such roofs took a tremendous amount of man-hours. In the Kyoto Imperial Palace, it takes about 25 years to re-roof all the buildings and each roof only lasts approximately 30 years. By the time one cycle of roff replacement is complete, another cycle has to begin again. Inbuilt into the architectural process is the ideal of maintenance, and almost by definition it is impossible for one to retain the original authentic material.

But material discussion aside, the complicated assembly process for a roof alone has some sort of preservation merit, at least for structural enthusiasts. Documented above are two examples of roof tectonic preservation, where a section of the roof detail has been preserved for the public to see. The first one demonstrates the layering of cypress bark that gives a unique and organic roof to the Japanese roofs at the Kyoto Imperial Palace. No metal is used and the entire structure is composed of layers meticulously threaded together with wood pins the size of toothpicks. The second one is from Higashi Honganji, and the Chinese style roof with its tiles reflect the flow of culture and Buddhism from the Chinese mainland.

The two roof archetypes have been displayed in detail for tourists to see exactly how these structures were built. As an architecture student, it is a lot easier to understand the section then it is to look at the complete roof and try to figure out the exact assembly. The intent of preservation is at least achieved in this regard. But, what if that was the only intent, that we only need to preserve buildings for the sake of preserving the tectonic process? Would we need the whole temple structure to remain original? An even better question is, since we do know how to construct the original structure, is it necessary that we preserve the original material assembly? If it falls, we can rebuild it again. History testifies to this and especially in earthquake prone Japan, rebuilding is the norm rather than the exception. How do we then evaluate authenticity? At the very least I suppose, the documentation of these impressive assembly structures as sectional models can be seen as a successful example of preservation. It's tectonic survival strategy is one of fetishization, where decontextuallization achieves the intended tectonic method preservation.