By Dr Tony Monda

FOR too long the colonials have imposed their aesthetics on the land through their edifices.
Our landscape is today being marred and defaced with another aesthetic which is foreign to the soil.
A blight to the visual memory of our ancestors, and ourselves in the form of Long Chen Plaza and other foreign designed constructions.
Buildings and other civic and public edifices form part of our visual and aesthetic identity.
It is on this premise that I would like to point out why it is important for Zimbabwe to rediscover a contemporary indigenous identity in the artificial building structures that have been built in recent years.
Our visual culture should be at the core, heart and soul of our society and should allude to the destiny and pride of African people.
According to the 1969 Pan-African cultural Manifesto, culture is also defined as “The essential cement of every social group, and its primary means of inter-communication and of coming to terms with its identity and the outside world; It is the soul, its materialisation, and its capacity to communicate our identity as Africans, in this case Zimbabweans”.
Bearing this in mind the building of public shopping malls, civic properties and public spaces situated within the Zimbabwean territory should reflect who we are as a people, artistically and architecturally.
Further, issues regarding legislation and cultural policies relating to public buildings need to be addressed before the construction of the current Eastern-colonial structures — that are now dotting our landscape and replacing those of the colonial West.
Where is our cultural identity reflected in Zimbabwean architecture today?
Apart from the Reserve Bank’s façade which has been decorated with the Zimbabwean Bird and Balancing Rocks, the semi-circular structure of the Monomotapa Hotel, built pre-Independence, and the recently built new airport with its elliptical conical tower, our urban architecture is alien and foreign to its people and not reflective of our great artistry.
Urban architectural and environmental design and the visual implications, symbols and their communication should be democratically agreed upon by an independent, suitable and qualified panel of art and design experts representing the country.
This is not a new practice.
In traditional African societies during the 13th century Zimbabwe the builders and architects of Great Zimbabwe held various consultative dares (meetings) and design briefs before constructing the series of stone palaces and edifices that stretched from Botswana to the Mozambique coast and North to the DRC.
This architecture is still recognisable today as part of the great tradition of stone masonry, which was first developed at Great Zimbabwe.
Today, as Zimbabweans we struggle to come to grips with our identity, and the building of foreign and alien architectural edifices becomes one of the main causes of the impoverishment of our visual cultural heritage.
We need to localise our public visual aesthetic, urban and peri-urban spaces in the context of who we are and our way of life, physically, spiritually, symbolically and culturally.
This country needs responsible and accountable urban architectural regulations and public monitoring of the awarding of construction tenders.
It must be deemed inappropriate and reprehensible for a country known world-wide for its creativity, innovative visual artists, interior designers and architects to play second fiddle to foreign visual design and have our aesthetic subsumed by the Chinese and their Sino culture.
This blight on our landscape can be seen at the National Sports Stadium, where a shopping complex and auberge have been constructed to reflect a Chinese dhow. This imposition on our environment is akin to aesthetic and cultural colonisation whose consequences will eventually lead to the impoverishment of our cultural heritage.
Architecture is an integral part of visual culture.
It is trans-institutional and communicates across media, and is used to encode identities in several institutions — personal, national, spatial, and ethnic.
Our challenge as Zimbabweans is that we do not recognise or study visual culture in its totality or as an indigenous system of visual identity and social formation which includes texts, graphic design, pre-historic cave friezes, visual art, product design, and architecture.
In the building and shaping of civil societies in Africa and in particular in Zimbabwe, it is crucial, imperative and pertinent to shape our identity, fashion our buildings and visual culture for the future.
The imposition of Chinese design technologies and buildings on sovereign African soil will have a negative effect and impact on African cultural heritage for the future.
The exigency of our cultural heritage should reflect cultural pride in our buildings that will in many ways bring a visible cultural language to our urban landscape — which should also auger well for tourism.
Critical public landmarks and cultural civic investments such as the mall and hotel constructed close to the National Sports Stadium should have been subject to concerted public discussions and debate on design, identity and purpose prior to its erection and should embody a design ethos and aesthetic that reflects the people of this country.
Dr Tony Monda holds a PhD. in Art Theory and Philosophy and a DBA (Doctorate in Business Administration) and Post-Colonial Heritage Studies. He is a writer, musician, art critic, practicing artist and Corporate Image Consultant. For Comments E-mail: tonymhonda@gmail.com