We mistakenly construct identities of architects by seeing their works. When we see great buildings, we feel their architects too must be great. But in this process of labeling, we seldom realize that it is the quality of the work that we assign the person, and it's not the evaluation of the person him/herself. What perhaps I am trying to argue is that qualities of work need not necessarily impersonate an individual. This construction of idols in such a manner is extremely deceitful.
But the society works by evaluating people through their works. You are a good (=useful) person if you can produce good (=useful) work. There is no humanities at work here. Environments are deals made in this realm of exchange of useful work (okay, I may be gross generalizing here). Nevertheless, what I can definitely say is that every building has so much of ruthlessness to itself. But it is all immediately covered up as the building is inaugurated. Would the financier of the biggest building allow its workmen to enter the premises once the building is finished? Never! The workmen will be shooed away as the red ribbon is cut.
Correa is not as human as his buildings. His buildings are "constructed" and therefore, his identity is constructed.
Why I am thinking of all this? Because I am realizing the difference between 'great people' and 'great buildings' - and I am wondering if places must have more of great people or great buildings?
But the society works by evaluating people through their works. You are a good (=useful) person if you can produce good (=useful) work. There is no humanities at work here. Environments are deals made in this realm of exchange of useful work (okay, I may be gross generalizing here). Nevertheless, what I can definitely say is that every building has so much of ruthlessness to itself. But it is all immediately covered up as the building is inaugurated. Would the financier of the biggest building allow its workmen to enter the premises once the building is finished? Never! The workmen will be shooed away as the red ribbon is cut.
Correa is not as human as his buildings. His buildings are "constructed" and therefore, his identity is constructed.
Why I am thinking of all this? Because I am realizing the difference between 'great people' and 'great buildings' - and I am wondering if places must have more of great people or great buildings?
10 comments:
hehe...it came up finally...
this is exactly what sen kapadia said in his office about him...I wont go deeper...like you didn't...
but then we never cared if he is a great human being or not...humanities is a greatly ignored chapter in case of Mr. Correa...
Now the question is...what is the difference between Doshi and Correa?
Ok, clarifications please:
1. sen kapadia said this about whom?
2. who wont go deeper into what?
3. didnt understand the pharase "like you didn't"
4. but we never cared if "he" is a great human being: who "he"?
Mr. Charles Correa...Sen said in his office, he is a very bad human being...
I wont go deeper into why he said that...but if you insist, its because of his behavior and language.
Did you put the reasons why these thoughts of "being good at work doesn't necessarily makes you a good human being" came into existence...but as much I can see, its very much related to Correa...
Mr. Correa...
can you please explain, is there is any other meaning of what you wrote and what it implies?
You are pretty much right in your speculations. The thoughts are purged because of Correa's unjustified and irrational behaviour.
I feel scared of all "big" people now - you never know what "kind" of people they are. I was pained to experience Correa first hand, since I used to idealize him. He has dropped down so much in my eyes that I despise him, and if I get an opportunity, I could critique all his buildings so severely that his "human" architecture will show up the real picture.
It's unfortunate that most of the people in India still consider him God of architecture, although his knowledge of understanding "india" itself is so second hand and outdated. Anyway, I can go on. But the point I am trying to make is:
1. Correa is definitely outdated and there is no need to give so much mileage to him in the architectural scene of India.
2. He is too banal and his understanding of the Indian environment is worse than even Corbusier (whom we consider an outsider).
see, these days my whole day goes on to a construction site...where construction is happening of the building I designed...
and after more than 6 months of designing and re-designing and now after few months of construction due to happen... I realized,I'll only be able to judge an architect more on what he does with given opportunity...
Secondly, Correa is what he is...his education is banal or not...is not something a person of our age can understand, in exactly the same way, we might find Hasan Fathy ...if we had worked with him...but he understood the language of mason..and gave it a platform.
Architecture is not something (as taught to us) a very magnificent art or whatever...it is very much rooted in the person himself and working with him for few days wont really give an iota of idea of what he/she really does with a project...one way the way we are taught "magnificent process, sketches, diagrams of idea exactly transferred into a built" might not be the case really...
It can be many other traits, experiences, choices Architect has made and carried...
my only suggestion is to not judge him...yes you have choice to distance yourself from him and think it over...Charles Correa lives in his work, he is great in his work and very rightly so...
He might not be a great human being...but there are multiple reasons for it...but still he is great, because of many reasons, beyond all the logics you can put forth. You have to accept him or not...critiquing him will find no use...trust me.
and I had also suffered from too much judging in my early office days...
Endurance of all obvious contradictions you are facing will be the key to all the things you want to look back to...the growth you were talking about in "The Pursuit of Happyness"
Are you trying to be safe about your comments earlier?
Well, I am the last person to be diplomatic. And I know what I am writing. There is a definite framework to my judgement. Anyway, my judgement is not going to change his life, neither mine. The 'critique' part was just a pointer to learn to grow beyond Correa. Unfortunately we are still stuck in the 60s modernism as ideal. That has to be changed. I dont want to critique correa, but his work - only to expand the knowledge of architecture.
And it's only the 'growth' which has helped me to look at people (like Correa) through NEW eyes.
How do I answer that? the discussion context changed from the original post till your explanation...
just check your second comment...This elaboration is more in-depth and speculative in terms of "what I feel and what I would do"
We can always stop at him not being a great human being...and conclude no further, and if necessary to conclude, it should not be in same breath or it'll have a chance of being contrived and not naturally arrived.
May be I must agree, and I hope people reading this thread of comments will understand that comments are written with a certain frame of mind that operates in a time and space. The harsh comments by me are not invalid, but they are too immature to be critical. They were written in a different mood. However, the essence of the post still holds and I am finding out a way to define a new framework for critically looking at correa's work in and outside the country.
I have worked for Correa. He is a terrible human being, but only to people who show poor value. Show him that you are worthy to the office and to the profession, he becomes a different person - one that truly cares for you and where you are headed, and more importantly - your environment.
To know his real value, you must talk to Krishnaji, when he is happy. Not when he just got a thrashing for misspelling a word in a letter.
Post a Comment