The Architecture of Non-Reason

"Why can't architecture be illogical?" asked a student.

I answered in the classic modernist way - that architecture is not absolute sculpture - and that thus it differentiates itself from art, that it is for a function and that it has to serve a larger community. That no architect can generate buildings (event if it was for the self) without considering logistical factors. That sculpture does not have to follow rules..." and so an and so forth...

To which, another classic, but un-informed response - "But all forms work..."

I said: "Yes, you put a toilet block in the middle of the road and it shall work - but what as an architect are you offering?"

Ah! Classic statements (I have educated myself on this while I was studying in my SYB Arch fuelled by my angst regarding role of an architect and what we are supposed to do? these were explanations I was satiated with...)! However, to me this debate was outdated and it did not take us anywhere. Sometimes, students ask questions which they themselves do not believe in. (I felt so with this one)

(my problem was the misplaced question on illogic: a brief that demanded an inherent mathematical logic to arrive at a design solution must not have harboured such a question which absolutely seems a-contextual to the project method)

I have been thinking of writing on "The Architecture of Non-reason", which shall ironically be logically reasoned out. I haven't decided on how and what would I write on it. But the trigger is my recent engagement with documentation of Sen Kapadia's projects - absolutely unreasonable. One can't even call it absurd: It does not even fall into a logic of method - he makes purely a-typical objects / spaces (as he would prefer to call them). He calls them intuitive. His buildings are absolutely un-relatable, abstracted to a level where one has to struggle to make an association with the reality of the world. 

Below are some images from Sen's office - and I have purposely chosen images I do not relate to. In all images, I see the manifest of non-reason. He would never justify even if my threw my question in the most direct way. 

The architecture of non reason perhaps works through intuition. Intuitions are one time decisions. They are untamed. They appear and die, one does not make plans for intuitions, they come on their own and go away! They do not have histories and hence are free of associations. Can one justify intuitions? They are not empirical or scientific, yet correct  most times - or at least decisions made intuitively never make you feel dejected. They qualify themselves as acceptable, and certainly one can not demand explanations for intuitions.

That is how the above architect works - with the idea of non-reason. But I am still not sure if non reason is a reaction to reason. Is it the struggle to be unreasonable that one makes such alien forms? Are these objects from another planet? They certainly do not qualify as poetic formally, the look like remains of some dead object, or something that has smelted, melted, eroded, in the state of metamorphosis - non conclusive. 

However, I have to elaborate some pedagogical deviations or revisions in the next post. Meanwhile, the post has allowed me to surface some points to elaborate my argument on the idea of non reason.