In a recent review at SEA, some students intended to give a solution for the space that bus stops on the foot paths often create along the streets of Mumbai. They wanted to, for instance, look at how different activities happening around this shelter could be better accommodated by relooking at it. However, in their process of quick response, their attention turned to redesigning the buses instead of the bus stop! This happened because they had decided to lift up the bus stop to free up the ground space. Quite obviously, the bystanders at the bus stop now had to climb up to go to the bus stop. They would now board the bus from an upper level, for which the buses were altered. However, this didnot eliminate the lower entry into the bus. The students retained the lower entrance for physically challenged and old people.
The second part of the presentation was focused thus, on the redesign of the bus! They had quite elaborate drawings of the bus, with quite funnily miniscule wheels! They explained their project with quite some confidence and enthusiasm. The exercise demanded that they think out of the box, but they just went berserk, in a direction where things became more uncomprehensible and the gaps between the problems and offered solution increased exponentially.
While a person like me would have trashed this idea, Prasad had an interesting take. He provoked the group to imagine, what would be the next logical absurd step they would take in their process! I was quite intrigued, but at the same time, waiting to hear if students could take it further. I am not sure if students understood either the critique or the provocation. Perhaps they understood both! But I am not sure if they were able to understand, at all, that they were designing absurdity. And further, I am not sure, if Prasad meant to hint that there is an aesthetic in absurdity; or whether absurdity is inherently disturbing.
However, thinking about the aesthetic of absurdity would make us agree that there probably must be some undeciphered order to it that gives us pleasure. The immediate example, and the one quite apparent, is the expression of the golden ratio. The fibonacci series which results in the golden spiral is one of the most aesthetic curls that we can probably draw, while the fact remains that it is derived due to the plotting of some fractions which donot ever resolve themselves. The golden rectangle or spiral, one of the most revered aesthetic figures, is thus in essence an expression of irrationality.
Numerous other propositions like the Brownian motion, the Chaos theory, the pigeon's dilemma and so on may seem quite absurd, but have been deducted as quite aesthetic. I wonder if scientifization of these irrationalities makes such phenomena aesthetic? Perhaps, the act of fiddling with these undefinable entities is aesthetic. But I am forced to think by mentioning quickly the above examples, that absurdity has a distinct aesthetic that can be perhaps explained in the sublime. But if absurdity can be explained, and even studied, does it at all remain so any longer? Does it qualify to be irrational? These are questions that opened up for me quite late after the students' presentation explained above.
I am wondering now, what Prasad's proposition actually meant? Further, what is the value of absurdity? How do we, if at all, benefit from it? Should absurdities be meant for benefits or should they assume wart-like characters? I think I mean 'pleasure' by benefits, pleasure in the thought, experience and engagement. Further, what place does absurdity have in academia? Does it have a method of deployment (this proposition is almost paradoxical)? If absurdity has a method, does it remain absurd (irrational) any longer? These are questions I have now come to think of loudly.
And what feedback with this background would one offer this group at hand? To be aware of absurdity and handle it with maturity is one thing. To be innocent with it is another. But meanwhile, this group was almost frivilous, pseudo-serious and presumed that they had been quite innovative. I do not blame them, but their age! But architecture school often makes students produce absurd artifacts which only become more meaningful in hindsight, when one has gained considerable maturity. Then, the way in which they are presented must change, and they way in which they come to inscribe people's lives are quite different.
The second part of the presentation was focused thus, on the redesign of the bus! They had quite elaborate drawings of the bus, with quite funnily miniscule wheels! They explained their project with quite some confidence and enthusiasm. The exercise demanded that they think out of the box, but they just went berserk, in a direction where things became more uncomprehensible and the gaps between the problems and offered solution increased exponentially.
While a person like me would have trashed this idea, Prasad had an interesting take. He provoked the group to imagine, what would be the next logical absurd step they would take in their process! I was quite intrigued, but at the same time, waiting to hear if students could take it further. I am not sure if students understood either the critique or the provocation. Perhaps they understood both! But I am not sure if they were able to understand, at all, that they were designing absurdity. And further, I am not sure, if Prasad meant to hint that there is an aesthetic in absurdity; or whether absurdity is inherently disturbing.
However, thinking about the aesthetic of absurdity would make us agree that there probably must be some undeciphered order to it that gives us pleasure. The immediate example, and the one quite apparent, is the expression of the golden ratio. The fibonacci series which results in the golden spiral is one of the most aesthetic curls that we can probably draw, while the fact remains that it is derived due to the plotting of some fractions which donot ever resolve themselves. The golden rectangle or spiral, one of the most revered aesthetic figures, is thus in essence an expression of irrationality.
Numerous other propositions like the Brownian motion, the Chaos theory, the pigeon's dilemma and so on may seem quite absurd, but have been deducted as quite aesthetic. I wonder if scientifization of these irrationalities makes such phenomena aesthetic? Perhaps, the act of fiddling with these undefinable entities is aesthetic. But I am forced to think by mentioning quickly the above examples, that absurdity has a distinct aesthetic that can be perhaps explained in the sublime. But if absurdity can be explained, and even studied, does it at all remain so any longer? Does it qualify to be irrational? These are questions that opened up for me quite late after the students' presentation explained above.
I am wondering now, what Prasad's proposition actually meant? Further, what is the value of absurdity? How do we, if at all, benefit from it? Should absurdities be meant for benefits or should they assume wart-like characters? I think I mean 'pleasure' by benefits, pleasure in the thought, experience and engagement. Further, what place does absurdity have in academia? Does it have a method of deployment (this proposition is almost paradoxical)? If absurdity has a method, does it remain absurd (irrational) any longer? These are questions I have now come to think of loudly.
And what feedback with this background would one offer this group at hand? To be aware of absurdity and handle it with maturity is one thing. To be innocent with it is another. But meanwhile, this group was almost frivilous, pseudo-serious and presumed that they had been quite innovative. I do not blame them, but their age! But architecture school often makes students produce absurd artifacts which only become more meaningful in hindsight, when one has gained considerable maturity. Then, the way in which they are presented must change, and they way in which they come to inscribe people's lives are quite different.
No comments:
Post a Comment