Kafkaesque models

TEXT - WORDS - IMAGE - BUILDING

Over the past 3 years we have been trying to formulate programmes which translate text into a physical landscape. Our endavours to engage with text have primarily been to inculcate may aspects into the studio. A study of Adrian Forty's "Words & Buildings" will give a worthwhile explanation of how we negotiate through language to communicate intangible ideas and how they finally get understood and manifested. In such transfer of ideas from faculty to student, and student to physical form, wide gaps are created. These gaps are because of the varying levels of understanding at which thoughts are exchanged. Much of the times, these thoughts are physically manifested as literal.

I have been trying to exactly define what does one mean by 'being literal' in architecture over the past 2 years. There is one mode of explanation that I generally use.
If you say,
A = B
A = C
then make B = C,
(where A is a word, B, C is a meaning)
you will be making something literal.
Mathematical logic in equating words & meanings perhaps makes architecture literal. The words we use for communicating our thoughts in architecture can be translated literally. Much of the goof up happens in verbalizing. While faculties talk of ideas, students understand it as words and dictionary meanings.

However, in this process, we were able to generate some interesting forms - sloping, crooked, twirling, swirling, spherical, conical, biological, etc. Only that none of the forms were placed in an appropriate site context. We have to still investigate how the interaction of form and site should be instructed. An architectural form is a result of not only the externalities of context, but also responds to the interior functions. This complex process, when well balanced along with all other default parameters like light, ventilation, circulation, etc allows for a debate at the next step. In juries, we ignore much of it and still are not able to talk of architecture.

However, if I was to evaluate text-based-entries to generate design solutions, we have to care to make students aware of the following:
1. When do you choose a text to intervene in a site.
2. On what basis shall you choose the text - how do you make a text relevant for a project
3. Do you use text as meaning or as concrete poerty? In other words, how do you use the text?
4. How should you rephrase architecture as words?
5. How should your building 'read' as text?

And there are many more, but the above questions are highly complex. What we wish to do is to expose the students to reading, thereby imagination and visualization. At that level, the project does open up points of debate. A lot of effort needs to then educate oneself on exposing to a lot of text-to-visual translations.

I don't really blame students, it's too early to manage all of it together. Perhaps if we could control our ambitions and design more feasible projects, it would be better for students. Although studios would be dry then, we should be able to bring out much more interesting and promising work.