Carnival and Architecture in the Caribbean: Re-centering the Focus on Culture in Trinidadian Design

Abstract

While literature exists that studies Trinidadian architecture, to date, there is not a comprehensive analysis of its architecture, much less one which thoroughly examines the historical complexity of Trinidad within the framework of transformative cultural symbols. In a study of Trinidadian architecture, addressing the country’s history of colonialism is unavoidable therefore, discussions revolving around Eurocentric architectural influences are inevitable. Additionally, the conditions of building in the Caribbean relate to climatic considerations, such as floods, hurricanes and extreme heat which cannot be ignored. However, there needs to be an introduction of Afro-Caribbean culture to the forefront of Trinidadian and to a greater extent, Caribbean architecture, beyond the extent of climate and Eurocentric practices. This study attempts to fill this void. Much of the literature focusing on Trinidadian architecture has isolated the significance of pre-colonial building or the significance of the larger colonial presence and failed to provide a full picture of the relationship between architecture and the cultural forces in which it partakes. For instance, Edward Crain’s work is an explorative historiography of overarching Caribbean architecture through analysis of various buildings in sixteen Caribbean islands (including Trinidad), organized by building function and location. However, his expansive work creates limitations in itself as each island only receives a couple of pages of commentary resulting in generalizations and lack of detail. There is also little mention of culture’s relationship to building within this study. Mark Raymond has begun to highlight the significance of culture within the realm of Caribbean architecture and places it within the context of Kenneth Frampton’s writing on critical regionalism. He also discusses the impact of colonialism and colonial-thought on the content of post-independent design. However, he does not connect colonial presence to Trinidad’s diverse populace and therefore, misses a significant portion of the history which contributed to the island’s eclecticism. Trinidad’s experience with colonialism became extremely complicated by the Cedula of 1783, a land and tax incentive which worked in attracting a massive wave of French agriculturalists and in turn, captured West-Africans to Trinidad. The popularity of the island grew as a result of the Cedula and also attracted British colonizers, who established their power between 1797-1802, and later down the line influenced a migration of Chinese, Portuguese and majority Indian people. Lawrence Waldron’s essays are perhaps the best examples of research reflecting this historical complexity, as they are crucial to understanding the influence of indigenous home typologies on the Gingerbread home style. Waldron does well in evaluating pre-colonial construction methods and even introduces the effects of the Cedula on population diversity and subsequently, the island’s architectural eclecticism. Still, he does not mention how these methods can relate to culture and be used to inform future archetypes of Trinidad. In understanding the complexities of Trinidadian history and evaluating where Afro-Caribbean culture reshaped Eurocentric practices, architecture can be examined beyond the “tropical” label and an informed framework for future architectural production can exist. In attempting to do this, it may be helpful to examine the Trinidadian celebration known as Carnival and use it as a template of successfully transforming a European occasion into a considerably traditional Trinidadian custom. Two factors which contributed to Carnival’s evolution were its consideration within the cultural framework of Trinidad and its ability to bridge the separation between the government and the people, both of which introduced culture into political and social discussions. Additionally, cultural practices which were mainly brought from West-Africa and evolved in the Caribbean were applied to the celebration of Carnival as a means of including the masses. The same needs to be done with architecture in Trinidad before a truly localized archetype can be defined and applied. More often than not, architecture on the island is marginalized in topics revolving around sociopolitical and cultural progression, and this only inhibits its ability to develop in formal and functional ways. Conversely, when culture and place are prioritized the outcome seems to represent the people on a more balanced level. Anthony C. Lewis serves as the perfect example for ways to initiate cultural themes into Trinidad’s architecture while straying from neo-colonial aesthetics, structure and material application. Lewis was able to apply critical regionalism in his residential and commercial projects in ways that encapsulated new possible directions for Trinidadian architecture. His work also represents some of the first forms built around regionalism in Trinidad as he brought the ideology to the island prior to independence and with that, his portfolio is a starting point for denoting a Trinidadian archetype. His personal repertoire sits in contrast to much of the government induced built work after independence and is therefore useful in better understanding designs that can be constituted as successful, versus designs that have no place in Trinidad. Finally, many architectural projects in Trinidad after 1962 either were either not necessary to build or overly grand and had no meaningful connection to the culture. If a close bond exists between Trinidadian people and neo-colonial structures, the ostracism of architecture by the government would not help in its advancement. Two case studies in particular, both of which hoped to give new meaning to architecture in Trinidad, are beneficial in comparing post-independent approaches to commercial design: The National Library (1999) and the National Academy of the Performing Arts (2010). The National Library was reflective of a mid-century modern structure yet worked in respect to the surrounding historic built work through its orientation, aesthetic and function. It is relevant because it indicates why post-independent cultural consideration is important in Trinidadian architecture. On the other hand, the National Academy of Performing Arts (NAPA) failed in its function and builds no connection to the culture or history of Trinidad. Therefore, it is an example of the effects of non-community-based development on the island. Designs such as these leave the landscape in disarray but more importantly, confuse how Trinidadian people are to reflect on architecture after independence. While both hoped to give new meaning to architecture in Trinidad, the ability to build a sociocultural connection and embrace the existing neo-colonial work allowed for success of one and failure of another. The intricacy of Trinidad’s history especially from 1783 forward is rich with the migration of various ethnicities and thus, several forms of culture. Drawing this history with indigenous and Eurocentric forms of architectural study to an established part of Trinidad’s culture may help in beginning to understand Trinidad’s architectural production in a more comprehensive manner. One which can shed light on the gravity of culture, prevent the marginalization of architecture in serious debates and aid in formulating a unique archetype for Trinidad’s future built landscape.