Mumbai Joy: A Critical Reflection

The AOA Vertical studio 2012 "Mumbai Joy" will come to an end tomorrow and we are here, waiting at the college to get all the prints for the exhibition organized. We have about 40 A0 and 8 8' x 4' panels to be printed (it's 12.00 am right now) and the printer has just started printing our sheets. All of us are wondering when will we get the final prints and I am here, sitting with Ajey waiting patiently for our prints to arrive.


Ravindra Punde and Rohit Shinkre were here for some time during the late evening. We couldn't help but get into a self evaluatory, self critical mode. We were discussing about how the Vertical studio turned out to be, although not in much detail. but thoughts keep crossing my mind on this issue and I wonder what I got out of the studio.


I do not really know if the studio has been a success, or even close to success, whether there has been any positive aspect that the student body sees. There were various possibilities and opportunities of learning in the "Mumbai Joy" studio, where we aimed to map cultures of Mumbai. We selected 10 areas of research which included celebrations, films, theatre, food, festivals, gymkhanas, fine arts, crafts, music and cricket. Each group had a team of 20 students and 2-3 faculties. We wished to map Mumbai cultures, a serious, rigorous effort to understand distinct patterns of the city we live in.

I will now begin discussing gaps, lags in communication between the students and the organizing team. Later, I will try locating the problems. Lastly I would try to open up possible strategies for our future operation.

Preparation:
We prepared as faculty. We prepared a final compiled 'intent sheet' with each of these sub groups. In order that student got enough time to decide and choose their area of interest, we floated an e mail, rather an e mail form with the entire description of the exercise along with a registration mail which asked them to choose their first three preferences among the 10 areas. I think we were prepared.

Later, we individually submitted our  methodologies of working and compiled it to understand each others' way of working.

GAPS:
1. It seems that many students assumed the studio to be a workshop where they would be trained in their area of preference.  For example, many in the fine arts group thought they would be involved in the production of paintings and artwork if they registered with this group. Students in the 'crafts' group  thought they would make craft. Some students opted for food since it seemed too playful. This clearly suggested that many students did not read the introduction of each of the sub groups carefully. They did not understand the intent of the studio. They didnot ask for clarifications. We as faculty assumed they understand well.

2. Faculties thought that students would be enthusiastic to channel their energies in their areas of interest and that every student must be able to relate to at least one of these areas. We assumed students would be eager to know more and research on these subjects. It wasn't the case.

3. Vertical studio meant the formulation of groups vertically - across classes. There are two divisions - aided and unaided, in the college and very few students interact. We thought this would be a good opportunity for students across classes to know and learn from each other. However, I found personally that there was hardly any intermingling or strong interaction between them.

4. The 10 groups, we idealized, could work independently. We never thought of overlaps or sharing of information except the Mumbai map.

5. We assumed students to have drive and skill to be able to analyze things around them.

PROBLEMS:
1. There was a clear case of mis-communication in the intent of the studio. We aimed at mapping (document+analyse+represent) and it turned out to be a documentation project.

2. Students had no idea of research. Our fourth year students are no equipped with enough training to accumulate and assort data.

3. Vertical studio groups did not interact vertically. Student groups did not mingle much. Many did not attend, many shuffled. All data remained isolated.

4. Field studies were unsuccessful. Students didnot have methods of observation or any idea of conducting surveys, interviews or taking pictures. They had no clue of "what to document", or what qustions to ask. They remained limited to questionnaires handed by us. There seemed to be very little effort from students to dig out information.

5. I found a serious lack of drive and initiative in the entire groups. No one waited for their panels to be printed and put up. Students had no attachment to their work or no excitement to see their work displayed.

PROBLEM LOCATIONS:
1. We get a large amount of student group highly under-informed and under-confident. Students new to the city, shy students and those coming from non-English backgrounds find it extremely difficult to communicate. I too was an under-informed student and particularly had no skills for architecture, except modelmaking. However, I had the drive.

2. Research has always been assumed to be an activity that is subsidiary and something that is 'all talk', which does not fetch money, and can not fill the stomach. The relation of research to design is seldom explained to students. Further, this gap widens due to over-emphasis on production of designs and drawings.

3. Faculties differ in their schools of thought, but make them personal issues. As mature individuals, we need to appreciate each others' theoretical positions and widen our spectrum of vision. However, the root of the problem lies in faculties pouring in from diverse groups, schools of thought and opinions. Recently, the age divide may be another big reason for the incoherence and intolerance of ideas.

4. Design at Academy is looked at in a very constricted manner. Architecture students are hardly made to (note the assertion) interact with other disciplines that are housed by the same building. Neither do students  capitalize, nor does faculty encourage or force. All remain happy in their own comfort zone.

5. As a corollary to the above point, I believe students can take larger initiatives to bridge these gaps. However, I find students are unmotivated, who see no point in discussing any issues beyond marks, and do not take any step towards making design education well rounded. Neither are they exposed, nor do they want to expose themselves. Internet seems to be a safe hideout and prevents physical exploration of our own city. Generally, the kind of students we are getting seem to be uninterested and hardly care for design. They are here for a degree and want to score good marks.

POSSIBLE TRAJECTORIES:
1. We need serious orientation programmes for students towards architecture and its scope. Further, we need orientation programmes for all sub-disciplines under the purview of the discipline of architecture. Students need to be engaged in the programme of architecture only if they understand and are willing to invest their maximum time in it.

2. Research programmes have to be initiated and they have to be funded well. This will possibly bring in a reassurance in the activity of study through documentation and analysis. There needs to be research method courses at all stages of the architecture course. Examples of research and its practical usage has to be spelled out from the beginning. The fact that research is closely related to pragmatic problems and is a respectable and viable industry has to be established.

3. Faculties may not be selected by word of mouth. They must be rigorously interviewed and their past work  and credentials has to be taken into consideration. They must be qualified and mature enough to teach.

4. Design programmes have to be reworked. Exchange programmes need to be initiated. Interaction between various design institutes must be made compulsory and students should be made to understand other methodologies of working.

5. Counselling for students joining the stream is required. We get a lot of students whose true passion lies somewhere else and due to cultural pressures, end up joining a professional course like architecture which is considered to be the toughest of all courses. We need to admit students based on their motivation levels, not as per their marksheets. The reason why most colleges abroad seem to be successful is because they choose their students. We have no choice. We have to accept what is given to us.

I wish to end this post here. It is a highly personal, narrow and restricted evaluation of the entire situation and much of it may be incorrect. However, it is a documentation of my experience of this entire studio that keeps me agitated enough to not make peace with the system, and thus maintaining my drive. All faculties felt students did not  perform to their capabilities. But the landscape and nature of problems encountered by every one may be different. Thus, the above account may be completely invalid. Also, it is restricted to only 5 points in the framework. There are many other aspects to our non-success. On the other hand, the above points could have been supported with examples or cases - which one intends to skip only to maintain the length of this summary and preserve the integrity of the student.

Overall, it has been an event which has consumed a lot of resource and time to excite a small section of student body which would have taken the extra initiative even otherwise. I believe, it was a greater opportunity for the faculty to understand the diversity of the practice of architecture and to mould their subjects to the specificity of the place they live in. The generic nature of information that the students are fed with meanwhile widens the gap between a student's practice and their immediate context. This further leads to strengthened belief in objectification of architecture.  I hope after reading this post, there would be reactions, and I would be glad to receive them here.