In a recent article on ‘Redefining Architecture’ in a local news paper, Architect Hafeez Contractor points out, “Go to Barcelona and you will be surprised that even a cab driver there is aware of the architects behind the different structures. Here, nobody is even aware of many of us, leave aside acknowledging our work.” Further, he adds that, “The field of architecture is highly neglected in India, and more importance is given to other creative fields. Though Architecture is the father of painting and sculpturing, but it is not recognized…”
The three questions that the above note raises are:
1. How does one ‘define’ architecture for the general masses?
2. Who do we expect to acknowledge our work?
3. What are these “other creative fields” that are given importance if architecture is the mother of all arts?
Simmel explains that “the nineteenth century demanded functional specialization of man and his work” . Further he states that each man identifies himself with these “supplementary activities of all the others” rather than the parent one. The histories of architecture and interior design in the world and India are not separate. In fact, the field of architecture has split up into other fields of ‘design’ post the industrial revolution. Architecture became a profession in India only after its independence, when people did not make themselves conscious about ‘design’. However, one can track a simultaneous growth of interior design and this awakening towards ‘design’ in the public mind.
Therefore, architecture is often perceived as a field where one designs/‘decorates’ interiors. Architecture never got a chance to detail its scope to the general public, who was to recognize and appreciate the production. A field, which was closer to people was interior design. Though earlier, it may have been a luxury of the elite, over the time, it has also become available to this general mass. Infact, all this while, what was closer to the public, who was to acknowledge architecture was local arts and crafts, which was created, produced and used by locals.
The problems which remain with us are whether we must deal with ‘architecture’ and ‘interior design’ as separate or one, and in either of the cases, how they affect the practice and production of space?
The three questions that the above note raises are:
1. How does one ‘define’ architecture for the general masses?
2. Who do we expect to acknowledge our work?
3. What are these “other creative fields” that are given importance if architecture is the mother of all arts?
Simmel explains that “the nineteenth century demanded functional specialization of man and his work” . Further he states that each man identifies himself with these “supplementary activities of all the others” rather than the parent one. The histories of architecture and interior design in the world and India are not separate. In fact, the field of architecture has split up into other fields of ‘design’ post the industrial revolution. Architecture became a profession in India only after its independence, when people did not make themselves conscious about ‘design’. However, one can track a simultaneous growth of interior design and this awakening towards ‘design’ in the public mind.
Therefore, architecture is often perceived as a field where one designs/‘decorates’ interiors. Architecture never got a chance to detail its scope to the general public, who was to recognize and appreciate the production. A field, which was closer to people was interior design. Though earlier, it may have been a luxury of the elite, over the time, it has also become available to this general mass. Infact, all this while, what was closer to the public, who was to acknowledge architecture was local arts and crafts, which was created, produced and used by locals.
The problems which remain with us are whether we must deal with ‘architecture’ and ‘interior design’ as separate or one, and in either of the cases, how they affect the practice and production of space?
No comments:
Post a Comment