Space in Text, Space in Architecture

Spaces between Words in a Sentence
Let us discuss the space as we find it in construction of writing, as such, based on the Latin writing system, we have a space bar on our computer keyboard. By observing the formation of sentences in Latin system, spaces between words are just as important as the words themselves. Therefore, a sentence is a juxtaposition/construction of words and spaces.

In Javanese system, the formation of sentences is done by tying up a word with the next word that comes after it. Space is not to be present. What is presented on a written sentence, then, are words connected with each other without spaces among the words. Such tying up of the words at times is carried out in a very strict manner that the succeeding character is tasked to “kill” its preceding character. Such tying up of the words really demonstrates that space is meaningless for Javanese writing (Note: it is Javanese writing we are talking about hereby, NOT Javanese sentence ==> We hereby need to differentiate Javanese writing and Javanese sentence)

Hence, when we are to discuss the space between words in written form, Javanese system of writing demonstrates the following:

WRITING: words are connected to each other without providing an opportunity for space to be. Does this mean there is a chance for “words destruction” (i.e.: mistake in differentiating a word from other words completely change the meaning of the word)?

READING: the first and foremost task in reading is to place a space between a word and another: which is none other than an act of EMPTYING. It is also an act of IMPRISONING; as well as UNTYING. Nevertheless, the act is not FILLING A SPACE BETWEEN WORDS; nor DETERMINING A DISTANCE; nor DELAYING A TIE.

It has been discussed that in reading, one is required to firstly untie one word from another. To be more precise, the first act is to build a certainty of which words are present in a row of scripts. Keep in mind that Javanese system does not deny interpretation; in fact, the first task according to the system is to interpret the row of scripts as a row of words.

So, between the author and the reader, there lies this following Javanese ETHIC: “the reader is not to be dictated by the author.” The reader is given a total freedom to interpret what is written. The reader, then, has the total freedom to build meaning; the total freedom to be not ruled by the author.

Would this ethic not loose its true direction so that the reader assumes the role of the author? Certainly not, for the task to stray away is tasked to the author. The author is required to control the interpretation to be built by the reader. Through the selection of words, this act of controlling the interpretation is carried out. This is also the factor why Javanese words have synonyms, in which one word may have several synonyms.

Now, on the reader. Are the codes of ethics for reading also applicable to the reader? This study has not answered this particular question. Nevertheless, we can still ponders upon it. When one is reading, what is actually done in the act of reading, and what is to be gained? Is reading about "listening to text," as once said by Budi A. Sukada? Is reading about "searching for what is said by the author"? Is reading about "learning,” that is to say, building up the reader’s body of knowledge by using reading/text as sign and point for building the body of knowledge? One thing can be regarded as a certainty: the reader has the right to build up his body of knowledge on his own, even if it means the reader is free of and unrelated to the author, through what in Javanese known as keratabasa or othak-athik gathuk.[i]

Keratabasa and Othak-athik Gathuk
Here, the word is encountered by the reader as a row of letters which do not have to be strictly associated with the word’s meaning. This row of letters indeed forms a word, yet it is a word emptied of its meaning. Such void of meaning is then filled by the reader with her construction of meaning. However, though meaning has been emptied, it does not eman tha the word has become completely meaningless. It is othak-athik gathuk which attempts to leave some traces of meaning or concept of the word. But then, the traces become the references for constructing the meaning of the word.

Example: the word kathok (pants). It is an abbreviation of the phrase: "diangkat mbaka sithok" (pulling up one by one). The meaning of kathok = pulling up one by one; for kathok becomes an abbreviation, therefore loosing its meaning. In understanding the concept of “pants,” as outfits which putting them on has to involve pulling up one’s legs one by one, the event called diangkat mbaka sithok becomes profoundly important.

Another example is cangkir = cup (such as a teacup). This word becomes an abbreviation of the phrase "nancang pikir" = "tying up thought." When a cup is used to offer a drink to a guest, the guest’s thought should be tied to that of the host. Compared with kathok which is an abbreviation of a direct act for making use the object, then in the case of cangkir the abbreviation is intended to signify the intention of the act of offering a drink in the cup. Another example would be "guru." The word can be an abbreviation of "digugu lan ditiru" (obeyed and followed); "yen minggu turu" (sleeping on Sunday), "wagu lan kuru" (looking unproportional and thin).

All these show how the reader has extensive freedom to construct body of knowledge by using the written letters. The reader may construct her own version of knowledge, with no requirement to submit to the author. The author’s knowledge is engendered in the letters as reference, or limits of interpretation and construction of knowledge.

Space and Nusantara’s Architectures
Writing in Javanese letters (as in writing in Balinese letters) does not include spaces between words which form the sentence. This brings at least two consequences, particularly in association with our knowledge on Nusantara architectures (Java and Bali in this case). First, Javanese recognize the presence of space, yet consciously do not present it. The reason is quite obvious: space is (regarded as) an unseen thing. By experiencing—reading a text—one can be aware of the presence of space. Which one is the space, or rather, where is the space? Upon reading and understanding the text, one can determine where the spaces are within the text’s corpus. So, a space can be determined after a word is determined. Just like a piece of white, empty paper. It is a space. Yet we are aware of this only after we have written some letters on it. Analogizing this in the case of Nusantara’s architectures, the presence of space would be recognized after construction of a building has been composed.

Second, meaning or intention of a text can be determined after an act of interpretation has been carried out. Interpretation is required, for without it, words and spaces between words would not appear. Analogizing this in architecture, meaning or intention of an architectural presence can only be determined after an interpretation on architecture has been carried out.

Something matters more, though. Only through interpreting Nusantara’s architectures one can determine the certainty of space. Can we then say architecture is about making space? A long discussion is to be done, if we want to discuss it.

Josef Prijotomo, 10th December 2008



[i] These two Javanese terms refer to an act of fitting up words to seemingly unrelated, or unexpected, meanings.