How do we read such masala buildings? What do we do with this masala? How does one identify its use? How do we make it more interesting and engaging? How do we make the reading of these building more meaningful? What cultural value do they hold? Should we even consider them? If we choose to, how do we talk about them? What are the ways in which we can address such imagic practices? What are the ways in which we can interpret them? What kind of aesthetic trajectories do they indicate? Is this the way to be global? Is it important to appear global in order to be global? What does being global mean for architecture? Does it mean to create a new masala, how is it to be prepared? Does it need to be mixed consciously? Or does it just happen by itself? Which masalas become acceptable? Which ones get rejected? What after all, should be the framework to appreciate this masala?
1 comment:
In some of these buildings, the form has been distorted for the sake of it - to be different, to stand out. These cry for attention.
In others, the facade has also been designed with the specific intention of standing out in a crowd. No real concept, no real larger goal.
Such designs should be slotted in a category that befits them - 'wannabe'
We should start paying attention to buildings that look different on account of their success at solving certain problems and their sensitivity to the elements.
There are buildings like Indiabulls one and Indiabulls finance centre designed by Anupam De that, even though they are typical climatically non responsive energy heavy commercial buildings, still look smart and neat and have a clean aesthetic and are visually appealing without trying to stand out using cheap tricks; rather the 'tricks' used to make it look good here are tried and tested architectural improvisations which include application of basic design strategies.
Post a Comment