Rupali and I had vaguely discussed to do a project on documenting the modern buildings in the city of Mumbai for the sake of several visitors - architectural or otherwise. Inspite of knowing several buildings of interest, often we would find ourselves struggling with names when asked to recommend a friend. Besides, much travel books on Mumbai end up focusing too much on either the ancient heritage - the caves, the temples, the churches or else, the popular - Marine Drive, Nariman Point, Fort and so on. A whole range of built works that one passes by almost everyday comes to be grossly overlooked by visitors, or even architects for academic study. In Mumbai, studies of historical precincts have been done for long now. Entry points in understanding space through history in architectural academic discourses often don't work well given the new spatial orientation through which students associate with the built environment today. It takes a good amount of work to open students to certain characteristics of built settings that they often tend to take for granted, or even undervalue due to the overriding market-driven "cleansing" narratives. On of the initiatives in our History-Theory program at SEA was thus to make students look at their everyday neighbourhoods, their surroundings through a strategy of defamiliarization. I was keen to take this one step further into looking at specific buildings which shape Mumbai's modernity. "Let's do a 'Mumbai Modern'", came the idea.
Early this year, Rupali got me to present the work at the Death of Architecture exhibition that opened in Mumbai. I was a bit confused about how it would fit within the premise of "Death of Architecture" and because I was also unclear about its curation. But in beginning to make meaning, several things opened up and settled within the frame pleasantly. The fact that the work was presented in one of the buildings the poster included, the celebration of architecture, and the subversions on modernism had already created an uneven ground for its discussion. I took the opportunity to premise the relevance of the study through the mapping of a certain change in the idea of public space - seen in the built forms of a socialist-nationalist India, their communal disposition and a certain honesty of expression - to that of a consumptive, bounded, insecure enclaving of the city, covered in shiny masks and false skins. The work became an index of buildings that traced ideological transformation of space through architectural engagement.
1. Death of anything/anyone inevitably brings us in to a state of contemplation. It creates a moment of rupture which allows for thought and reflection. The Mumbai Modern offers an opportunity to trace the transforming spirit of space, the changing face of architecture, and puts us in a position to decide what we really come to value within our architectural environment.
2. When thinking of death, one is compelled to recall an anecdote by Charles Correa, and one of the things he admired about India as a country. He said that "India grows in its own decay." It is much valuable to think of growth and decay as a continuum. And to think of built environment through the metaphor of the "swamp" is particularly interesting, for it elevates the work of building as an eco-system, which regulates itself through simultaneous rejection and acceptance of emerging values. A thousand deaths collapse, and several births reappear simultaneously. Such a consideration brings architects in a unique position with death.
3. Having said the above, the city we live in appears to be an emerging ruin, not because of destruction, but because of its constant evolution. The landscape of incomplete structures, left over mosaic and morphing redevelopments characterize a unique setting of a ruin that awaits itself to complete forever. This lack, or incompleteness is what brings us closer to the city, for we witness its growth, we witness its transformation and embrace its change. And here, one begins to think what possibility do we come to imagine when we look at the built environment through the putative anxiety of the death of architecture?
Two years ago, our third year studio put together a study on about 24 modern buildings of Mumbai over the last 100 years that are often overseen as projects of value. The work culminated in a poster bringing together drawings and photographs of our modern heritage. The poster deliberately skipped some buildings like Kanchanjunga (by Charles Correa) and instead brought to light his LIC colony (in Borivali) and the Portuguese Salvacao Church (in Dadar) which often get missed out. Correa has done significant work in Mumbai - including the SNDT campus and the Dadar Catering College which do not get discussed as much as Kanchanjunga. Similarly, academia has missed discussing Uttam Jain and Kanvinde who contributed buildings like the Indira Gandhi Research and Development Centre (Goregaon) and Nehru Science Centre (Worli) respectively. One wonders why don't we take these projects seriously? The project thus became about creating a repository of everyday-modern buildings of Mumbai, and culminated into an A0 poster!
Early this year, Rupali got me to present the work at the Death of Architecture exhibition that opened in Mumbai. I was a bit confused about how it would fit within the premise of "Death of Architecture" and because I was also unclear about its curation. But in beginning to make meaning, several things opened up and settled within the frame pleasantly. The fact that the work was presented in one of the buildings the poster included, the celebration of architecture, and the subversions on modernism had already created an uneven ground for its discussion. I took the opportunity to premise the relevance of the study through the mapping of a certain change in the idea of public space - seen in the built forms of a socialist-nationalist India, their communal disposition and a certain honesty of expression - to that of a consumptive, bounded, insecure enclaving of the city, covered in shiny masks and false skins. The work became an index of buildings that traced ideological transformation of space through architectural engagement.
In such foregrounding of the work, I proposed three points of relevance for the discussion of the project within the framework of Death:
2. When thinking of death, one is compelled to recall an anecdote by Charles Correa, and one of the things he admired about India as a country. He said that "India grows in its own decay." It is much valuable to think of growth and decay as a continuum. And to think of built environment through the metaphor of the "swamp" is particularly interesting, for it elevates the work of building as an eco-system, which regulates itself through simultaneous rejection and acceptance of emerging values. A thousand deaths collapse, and several births reappear simultaneously. Such a consideration brings architects in a unique position with death.
3. Having said the above, the city we live in appears to be an emerging ruin, not because of destruction, but because of its constant evolution. The landscape of incomplete structures, left over mosaic and morphing redevelopments characterize a unique setting of a ruin that awaits itself to complete forever. This lack, or incompleteness is what brings us closer to the city, for we witness its growth, we witness its transformation and embrace its change. And here, one begins to think what possibility do we come to imagine when we look at the built environment through the putative anxiety of the death of architecture?
 |
| City-Ruin 1 |
 |
| City-Ruin 2 |
 |
| City-Ruin 3 |
No comments:
Post a Comment