Images <> Forms

In the past 3 days, I have happened to get into some intense discussions. One of them was the Interior design Jury for the second year-ites. The project was to intervene in the caves at Kahneri, Mandapeshwar, Elephanta and Mahakali. In a way, I felt that the project was a an interesting one to study interiority. The interior design studio during this entire year discussed quite mature issues. The first one was almost inspired by my fellowship research (though I may not completely claim it to be that way) and the idea of the first project developed from looking at domestic objects. Everyday objects were studied, analysed and new ideas were associated to them finally taking them to the next step for enveloping them into a space or a space that they could envelop (i shall confirm this with the faculty).

However, the two important arenas of discussion that the projects opened were: domesticity and interiority. Thus the projects were not really driven by the typical practice of interior design that happens in the city today. The arguments they generated were fairly academic. The intervention at the Kanheri Caves especially evoked a huge debate, where students decided to create a kind of historical journey through the various architectural landmark structures. These included the temple forms, the church forms, the mortuary temples at Egypt, the Moghul gardens, the Pantheon, the basilica, the Greek amphi theatre and so on. Imagine placing each of these (taking on different functions) against the Kanheri caves.

At one instance it may seem absolutely funny. Well, it is. It definitely is. But this discomfort allowed us to debate how we so strongly relate forms to functions / images to forms / meanings to images / and information to meaning. Atul's argument was not to look at the image of a church as church or not to associate the image of the temple with the temple. He argued that these functions (temple, church, etc.) were ideas that manifested into these forms. Today these ideas could be reinterpreted. Today, their manifestations could be different. (in fact, they have been different to quite an extent). Then the association between the image and the form is broken. How do we then re-constitute the image of a church? My argument was to go into the experential. But Atul cautioned me to do so! That's the beginning of a big search that we ended in.

Here are some pictures of the projects: