I choose the design’s project 3 in semester 3, which presented local museum at Sungai Chua. This project is seen as an opportunity for Selangor State Government to achieve strategic objectives relating to the promote culture and history awareness of Kampung Baru as well as bonding generations and ethnic groups by generating activities for mutual understanding. Design is not about beautifying an object but to observe, analyze and understand the underlying issue, solve the problem with creativity.

​

In the discussion and texts introduced today, I found out there is different between ‘simplicity’ and ‘complexity’. Simplicity is the quality or state of being simple, unmixed, or uncompounded. The quality is not being complex and there is freedom from cunning or duplicity. Complexity is the state that being complex, intricacy. The biggest lesson that I learned today is that Simplicity and Complexity are not mutually exclusive. You can, and absolutely, should strive for the required amount of both. The simplest solution is the one that solves the problem with the minimal amount of accidental complexity.

​

There is another lesson that is implicit in: Simple does not equal Easy. Maybe the façade of the building or the design of the building look simple, but the process of designing doesn’t easily or it simple but didn’t easily to build.

​

Go back to the project that I chose just now, I think that is simple when look at the design of the museum but it also could be complexity based on the richness and ambiguity of meaning inside of it. From the façade of the museum, we could saw that it totally simple just like the houses in Kampung Baru, Sungai Chua. The design is similar to the local place. When we get into the building, just realize there is not a residential is a small gallery in it. A valid architecture evokes many levels of meaning and combinations of focus: the space and the elements in this local museum become readable and workable in several ways at once.

​

In some modern architects, they attempt to break with tradition and start all over again, they idealized the primitive and elementary at the expense of the diverse and the sophisticated. They acclaimed the newness of modern functions, ignoring their complications. I think that the architect determines how the problems should be solved, not that which of the problem he or she will solve. If he or she solved more problems, the building would be far less potent.

​

Last but not least, I think that complexity of the functional problem must be acknowledged. To the course, or the program, and the unique of time, which are complex because of their scopes, such as this project – museum. We need do some research on the others museum, the site analyze, the circulation, the sun orientation and others. Even the house that we live, simple in scope, but is complex in purpose if the experiences are expressed. This make a contrast with the goals of program and the meaning of program is significant. The program could be simple but need to be richness of meaning in it.