(photos in order: house for atheist and a believer, again same, house for plant maker/breaker, house for a person with mixed identity, drawing for space for sculptors, model of the previous, space for a body builder)
We finished the First year AOA final jury today. Looking through incomplete works, unthought-of panels, last minute models and messy floors, we finally shortlisted 8 projects to be discussed in the class. I would like to discuss those projects on my space here.
Project 1: Shamin Bhangwar - She built a space for a musician and a meticulous lady in Sherley Village. What she explored was the musician’s space where she translated the 5th symphony of Beethoven into her architectural expression inside the house using curved roofs, sloping ramps and fabric coverings. Though the project was quite literally translated, the effort was commendable. Her drawings were beautiful and the model was superbly executed.
Project 2: Sahil Kanekar - He chose to bring a character from Madhya Pradesh’s dry land to meet a sailor in Sherley village. He decided to recreate the experience of a ship through the house he designed for both these characters. So his house sat inside a depression where in you climbed to a deck through a ramp crossing the water that would accumulate in the depression. He created a watch tower, a bedroom which was half submerged in water (like you would see from inside a ship) and a suspended floor where one could experience the unstable of the ship.
Project 3: Vidhi Jain - Chose to work with two sculptors (and some complicated story). She manifested the terrace of a 6 storey high tower into a beautiful sculpture like rib case (or rather a spine) - the language of which flowed in to the space of the second character. The perfection with which she executed her drawings and model were superb.
Project 4: Anushka Desouza - I was not interested in her characters at all. However, what we found interesting in her project was the way in which she articulated her spaces in a shoe box like space opening and transforming the spaces outside it.
Project 5: Hrishikesh Borse - His users were a car stealer and perhaps a mechanic? He actually ended up in an exciting dynamic form, which was derived after studying the aerodynamic properties of a car. Though the concept did not apply to the site, or even the function, we appreciated his commitment to a form, which was quite fascinating.
Project 6: Siddharth Kantharia - The most celebrated project of the class - where the two users were an atheist and a believer of God. The design posed an interesting dialectic of spaces which questioned and supported the belief of God at the same time. This was manifested again in Sherley village - a predominantly Christian community, where Siddharth chose to begin by using his building to hide an existing cross, which is only revealed at the end of the journey in the house. The house uses Christian signs and play of light and shadow to create experiential spaces where a dialogue between the atheist and the believer would take place.
Project 7: Nikita Mahale - Her users were a psychologically irritated person who would purge his frustration by plucking leaves (in his village) and grass and a gardener from Hiranandani. The project saw the two users as plant-breaker and plant-maker, in the context of the site, and developed a language wherein the house protects the trees from inside while the trees grow on outside the house. Nikita worked consistently over manifesting a cage over which leaves would creep and become the skin, which could be plucked to open out a window from the house while the gardener thought that he is protecting the trees from his house partner.
Project 8: Rohini Bapat - Rohini’s project was selected for her improvement graph and the beautiful large sections that she drew. She worked with the scrap material on a junkyard site to create a boundary where a night watchman could give a cricket enthusiast practice lessons to develop his skills in the sport. Though Rohini’s project had large technical errors, the quality of spaces that she created were really good.
All project in some ways questioned several notions of the city. The communal mosaic of a neighbourhood, the large green bounded gardens in Hiranandani, the wealth of material in what seems junk at Chor Bazaar, or the junk that converts into a space in a formal space… there were interesting contradictions. Perhaps students were too tired to discuss them,
But that is what was perhaps depressing. We asked students if they liked philosophy or how they decide upon liking certain things, or how they look at the city, or what do they feel about slums - none answered! However, they liked certain drawings, because of technical correctness, not because it was a nice experiential space, or because it felt nice…I think students take pleasure in construction and graphic subjects, where things are given. They said they refer books for Basic Design, not for Architectural Design. They refer to google and type in keywords (themes) for their AD on search engines (how ridiculous can that be!). However, they said they like to study real sites.
I spoke a lot, and tried to engage them in a discussion (but maybe that’s ironical and did not help in a ‘dia’logue). I should have kept my mouth shut. No one likes to talk; no one wants to discuss things. They come from a setup where things are always fed! But things will be like that. And I will continue to be irritated by the system.
No comments:
Post a Comment