The Conundrum of Form

Where is FORM born? Specifically, where is architectural form born? I am recently back from the review of first year orientation workshop review at Avani Institute of Design in Calicut where I was thinking about this question. The thoughts are very dense and I might not be able to clearly jot down the complex questions have regarding this. 

In first year architectural studios, often there is a lot of emphasis on the introduction to the (architectural) idea of form and space. To be sure, it is assumed that what people generally see around them in the built environment are 'buildings'. 'All buildings are not architecture' - as they say, just like 'All writing is not literature'. Therefore, architectural form - for the time being, let's consider physical form that architecture creates is more complex than its understanding as mere enclosure, and the shape of its boundaries so to say. If this form is the key object to be created in architecture, it is no less than artful creation for the discipline that must address several aspects at once. In order to create such form, one has to go through a process - a method. 

The compulsion to create the new and the interesting is what propels the strategizing of design studios in the first year of architecture. So where does one begin this process? In the trained architect's mind, form comes from experience - form is also an experience form is shaped by some experience. Note

that all these are ways in which the relationship of tangible and intangible get set in pedagogic processes. Yet this is more complex than it appears. Form could also mean form of experience, which means form itself can be intangible. In common architecture discourse, form is held in an invisible unacknowledged opposition to 'space' - where form encapsulates or encloses space, or form is the envelop of space, or it is the container of space.

Thus, form and space correspond to the container and the Contained. But this poses a question as to whether form contains only the physical aspects of habitation? Does form cater only to physical ideas of protection, security, shelter, etc? Or is it capable of mediating intangible aspects like mood, ambience, well being, etc.? This duality, which is inherently the dilemma of is the crux in which design of space is situated. The fact that form and space are Conjoined by the operator 'and' - brings out the inevitability of one producing the other. Hence where does one begin and where does one one limit - this continuum between the tangible and intangible is the heart of conundrum in teaching form and space. Inherent to this entire conundrum is the question of aesthetics and beauty, which I will elaborate a little later. Meanwhile, let us dwell on process of form.

In pedagogic space, architectural form is the way in which we produce an envelop - or ways in which we set a relationship between the physical elements which holds emptiness between them to give an experience of an constructed environment. 

QUICK GLOSSARY :

FORM: a specifically orchestrated experience

EXPERIENCE:

    (a) sensorial - perceived through the senses

    (b) mental perceived within the mind. psychological

CONSTRUCTED: any thing that is intervened and mediated by human agency. 

ENVIRONMENT: the overall condition we come to inhabit

Therefore in most design studios, the expectation or ambition is to produce a relationship between the component elements that is not conventional , or something that does not appear familiar - avante garde say. Moreover or otherwise, sometimes, it can also be about producing a relationship that affirms a certain register to amplify an existing learnt aesthetic experience. Nevertheless, most design studios operate upon the thrust of producing something radical - something radically new. In this motion, (to address or even orchestrate the question of new), new processes need to be set. (A new apparatus will yield a new form - is the assumption). 

How do we achieve new apparatuses? how do we produce new processes?

In creating these apparatuses and thereby forms, often two things are principally mobilized:
a. Translation
b. Abstraction

Translation happens from one disciplines experience into architecture. For example, accessing a piece of literature or music, or dance, to work with its aesthetics to be experienced through architectural space and form. For example, how does text become a building / architecture? Or how does music become form? It is understood rightfully that each of these allied disciplines of literature, music, performance , theatre, dance, etc. - hold and work with an aesthetic apparatus, and result into an aesthetic form, having their own internal aesthetic question. However in order to innovate internal architectural thinking, one harks into another discipline to / in hope of deriving a new form for one's own discipline. However, this happens through not-so-tried or tested methods of translation from one register to another. What is it that we translate, when we translate from one language into another? Translation requires immense maturity. Moreover, in order to translate, one must have complete or proficient command over the primary material language from which it would be translated into. 

To be sure, often, nor the students, neither the teacher have command over the aesthetic language of the primary base material. For example, if one wants to translate music (say Hindustani Classical) in architectural form, he/she must have great command over the understanding of its structure and inner workings (and therefore its form - and thereby its limitations). However, in many (rather most) cases, both, the student and the teacher approach the primary medium with a cursory or impressionistic understanding of it. It is possible however that

a. the either party has a strong training into the structure of base art form

b. that either party has developed faculty to understand and interpret another art form's nuances through an innate understanding of one's own disciplinary structure. 

In either case, these relationships and their gaps are not acknowledged or even made explicit; and are grossly left to the task of interpretation. It is believed that interpretation will yield interesting vectors for aesthetic exploration. It is here, that we encounter the vagaries of 'subjectivity'.

Interpretive processes are often validated through the trope of / under the guise of 'subjectivity'. "I like", "I thought"... are lines of argumentation that students often adopt and these are also interrogated by teachers using cultural contra-positions such as "but in this culture...", "but why this association..." Here, while the pandora box of associative understanding is opened up, it more often than not is convoluted in certain web of power (of the teacher) and unfamiliarity (of the student). In such a broad cultural landscape of interpretive associations, how is one - either the teacher or the student - supposed to pick an appropriate and relevant one for the task of translation? In cultural processes, these decisions get taken through assertions deeply embedded in one's own politics. (this is something to be elaborated in another note - for how does one be generous for the student to allow the assertion of one's own subjectivity while navigating the cultural landscape of meanings?).

The more important thing however is that the "subjectivity"  that is mobilized is often uncritical. Meaning - that the "I" is often not methodically interrogated. Where does one get one's subjectivity from? Subjectivity - one's own perceptual associations - that drive aesthetic experience of any object or environment - do not come from vacuum. They are mostly embedded in a socio-cultural setting. they may also be located in various other frames which critical Theory has amply addressed. Without engaging in Critical theory, the mobilization and assumed acceptance of subjectivity and its associations seem unreliable. Moreover, even if not critical theory, subjectivities depend on processes of self-identification - in processes of identity formation. More often than not, our subjectivities are heavily preconditioned by social processes. How do we de-layer them? And in other cases, for people who experience new subjectivities may not have the language to express it (take for example queer experience - who often find it hard to put words to their experience because language itself is so wrangled into heteronormative forms). 

Thus in order to locate one's subjectivity, one needs to necessarily in Critical Theory, or a deep investigation of the self. Have we considered such scientific-humanities engagements before we delve into process of translation? I also feel that several experience become accessible to us only through the function of age and time (take for example puberty, adolescence and the related socio-psychological impositions along with of course its material physical effects felt within the body, or the experience of family, or giving birth, or the frailness of living and old age, and so on). Therefore, how does one sensitize oneself to the vagaries of subjectivity before the act of jumping into translation, is a questionable aspect. It hints at the politics of associativity in aesthetics. 

The second is the process of abstraction. Abstraction processes are central to all creative processes. Here, reality, or aspects/ fragments of the real are left behind in order to reveal a certain sub structure, or meta structure that hold "form" together. Abstraction however holds the promise of preserving the 'essential'. The 'essential' is the key value, or the defining quality of an aesthetic object into consideration. Abstraction also hopes to hold this essential while possibility orienting us to / crystallizing into a different form. In this line of thinking, the procedural apparatus acts as a filter of sorts to reality, which allows to retain certain aspects of chosen form to work into a new form. Abstractive processes are valuable since they hold the potential to produce larger (a more generous) common ground for the confluence of different disciplines to draw from each other They also help in reducing the amount of information to be processed from an object - the amount of information one has to parse to make an observation knowledge-worthy. However, the processes of abstractions can often become (mechanical) to hold any meaning for the person operation. This is a question of heuristics. How does the apparatus of translation become meaningful and how does one validate the aesthetic acuity of such apparatuses?

Thus, responses produced within the unresolved questions of 'subjectivity' and 'abstraction' require more grounding. The student entering the course of design at the age of 18 - I must assert - is largely and necessarily underexposed to the complexity of one's own identity (and thus subjectivity) as well as unaware of the notion of abstraction (even though. Moreover, identity itself is malleable, in formation, and in fact, design education institutions are themselves prime machines that shape specific design identities (to put it popularly - "schools of thought" or "ways of seeing") amongst their students. How does one conceive of pedagogic processes with such transforming dynamics of the self?

While these are preliminary deliberations on the pedagogic aspect of things, the story on the other side needs a critical evaluation too. What does the student really take back from the engagement in such processes about form - about architectural form? Does the student understand the connection between the base art form and the resultant architectural product which we call architectural space? Are they able to appreciate the intricacies of the base art form more closely than before, or are they able to appreciate notionally the structure of aesthetics in general? What precisely have they absorbed in this process of translation that was essentially orchestrated for them? Did they understand this as an act of translation at all, if the work of architecture could be to offer functionally meaningful solutions. I am not sure if students ever arrive at this question - and how, or when? And how do we evaluate what kind of subjectivity we have eventually shaped? These are questions that often get buried under the eventual production of a seemingly novel looking architectural form. Could it be possible (in this stream of thought) that two completely different looking forms have the same experience - in linguistic / diagrammatic parlance -- certainly yes! However, how do we then hold what is essential to architecture? This is not a burning question, rather a tickling question (almost a laughable one)!

to be continued...

Thane Kattey by Bhanvari Devi / Translation

Singer: Bhanvari Devi

Original Language: Marwari


साँवरियो घट माय रे, रमैयो घट माय (2)
In my heart is my beloved, as much as Lord Ram

थाने कठे, थाने कठे, थाने कठे, थाने कठे
Where are you, where do I find you?

थाने कठे ढूँढवा जाऊँ रे, साँवरियो घट माँ? ओ, जी, ओ
Where shall I go searching for you? O Dear that you are in my heart?


राम भी देख्या, लक्ष्मण देख्या, (2)
I have seen Ram, I have found Laxman,

देखी सीता माई रे, ए-जी, देखी सीता माय रे
I also saw Mother Sita,

साँवरियो घट माय रे
He is inside my heart

थाने कठे , थाने कठे , थाने कठे , थाने कठे
Where do I look for you? Where after all?

थाने कठे वाळवा जाऊँ रे, साँवरियो घट माँ? ओ, जी, ओ
Where do I dig you out from? From inside my heart!


ब्रिम्हा देख्या, विष्णु देख्या, (2)
I have seen Lord Brahma, I have seen Lord Vishnu,

देखी सरुसती माई रे, देखी सरुसती माई रे
I have also seen Goddess Saraswati

साँवरियो घट माय
You live inside my heart…

थाने कठे, थाने कठे , थाने कठे, थाने कठे
Where do I see you? Where?

थाने कठे वाळवा जाऊँ रे, साँवरियो घट माँ? ओ, जी, ओ
Where do I search you out from? My love is etched in my heart!



केरो देख्या, पाण्डु देख्या, (2)
I saw the Kauravas, I saw the Pandavas

देखी दरुपद माई रे, ए-जी, देखी दरुपद माई रे
I have visited Mother Draupadi

साँवरियो घट माय
My heart is filled with my beloved

थाने कठे, थाने कठे , थाने कठे, थाने कठे
Where do I see you though? How do I find you?

थाने कठे वाळवा जाऊँ रे, साँवरियो घट माँ? ओ, जी, ओ
Where do I search you out from? You stay in my heart...

Didi Contractor: A Charactersketch

 

दीदी दीदीला मी फक्त तीनदा भेटलो. पहिली भेट नम्रतामुळे शक्य झाली. तिचे हे ऋण फेडता येणे शक्य नाही. पहिल्याच भेटीत दिदीला दिलेला बांबू पाउच दीदी 20 मिनिटे न्याहाळत बसली. एकेक वीण कशी आहे हे डोळ्यांनी आणि स्पर्शाने अनुभवत होती. "This is beautiful"... प्रत्येक डिटेल पाहिल्यावर ती हे एकच वाक्य बोलत होती. मग मी, लक्ष्मी आणि दिदीने जेवताना येथेच्छ गप्पा मारल्या. शाश्वत वास्तुकलेचा भक्कम पाया रचणारी दीदी आम्हाला मात्र एखाद्या नवख्या विद्यार्थ्याप्रमाणे मातीच्या बांधकामाचे प्रश्न विचारत होती. मातीची बोटल टेस्ट कशी करतात हे तिने मला शिकवायला सांगितलं. मी बॉटल टेस्ट करत असताना दीदी बारकाईने पाहत होती, आणि मध्ये मध्ये लक्ष्मीला सांगायची-" हे बघ लक्ष्मी, आपण इथेच चुकलो". दिदींसारख्या ऋषितुल्य वास्तुविशारदाने स्वतःची चूक इतक्या सहज पणे मान्य करणे माझ्यासाठी अविश्वसनीय होते. लक्ष्मी मला नेहमी सांगायची-" दीदी जागी असली म्हणजे ती काहीतरी काम करत असणार, आराम करणं तिला जमायचेच नाही". मी दिदीला एकदा म्हंटल- दीदी, जरा विश्रांती घेत जा"- त्यावर ती हसून म्हणायची - प्रतीक, किती गोष्टी बाकी आहेत, किती घरे बांधायची आहेत, मातीच्या बांधकामाचा प्रसार करायचा आहे, सोलर चुलीची माहिती लोकांना द्यायची आहे, भारतीय स्वयंपाकावर पुस्तक लिहितेय.. कितीतरी deadline आहेत, आणि माझं वय बघता त्या खरोखरच deadline आहेत". ती असे बोलताच मी  आणि लक्ष्मीने एकमेकांकडे पाहिले. मृत्यूला दिदीने फार आधीच स्वीकारलं होत. मृत्यूबद्दल ती फार सहज बोलून जायची. आणि आपल्याकडे असलेला ज्ञानाचा वसा जास्तीजास्त लोकांना मिळावा म्हणून ती सतत आपल्या विचारांचे रेकॉर्डिंग करायची.  तिच्या बागेतील प्रत्येक झाडाला ती स्पर्श करायची. कोणत्या झाडाला किती पाणी द्यावे, किती खत द्यावं हे फार बारकाईने पहायची. तिची बाग नेहमीच अगदी तिला हवी तशी व्यवस्थित असायची. निसर्गावर दिदीचे इतके प्रेम होते की दिदीच्या बागेत निसर्गही दिदींच ऐकायचा... दीदी सांगेल तस वागायचा... दीदी बरोबर झालेल्या तीनही भेटीत आम्ही कधी वास्तुकलेबद्दल बोललो असू असं आठवतच नाही. दिदीसाठी वास्तुकला ही जगण्याचा भाग होती. दिदीने वास्तूला व्यक्तिरुप दिल होत. घर म्हणजे व्यक्तीच. घर निर्जीव नसतेच. ती घराच्या आणि घरातल्या व्यक्तींच्या नात्याला अनन्यसाधारण महत्व देते. तिच्या मते घरालासुद्धा स्वभाव असतो. घरातला प्रकाश , खोली, वारा ह्यावर तो स्वभाव अवलंबून असतो. अभिकल्प कागदावर रेखाटताना दिदीला पाहणे म्हणजे पर्वणीच. मायकलांजेलो मूर्ती बनवताना  किंवा तानसेन गाताना असाच मग्न होत असेल का ? दीदी घराची निर्मिती ह्याच तन्मयतेने करायची. मध्येच लक्ष्मीकडे पाहून बोलायची-" ह्या खिडकीतून सूर्य इथे जमिनीवर येईल आणि संध्याकाळ होई पर्यंत इथून तिथे लहान मुलासारखा घरात बागडेल". दिदीने वारा, प्रकाश ह्यांना घरात बागडायला भाग पाडले. अशी एखादी कल्पना तिच्या डोक्यातून कागदावर आली की तिला होणारा आनंद पाहण्यासारखा.  दीदीच्या घरात पहिल्यांदा प्रवेश केला तो स्वयंपाकाच्या वस्तूंनी आणि भांड्यांनी गजबजलेल्या स्वयंपाकघरातून. बंद कपाटे दिदीच्या घरात नाहीच. तरी प्रत्येक वस्तू जागच्याजागी. ह्यावर दीदी म्हणते- "आपण जेव्हा एखाद्या व्यक्तीला भेटतो, तेव्हा ती व्यक्ती संकोच न करता, मनात काहीही लपवून न ठेवता आपल्याशी बोलू लागली की आपण त्या व्यक्तीशी जोडले जातो. घराचेही तसेच आहे. माझ्या घरात जे आहे ते उघड आहे. त्यात काहीच लपवलेले नाही. ते पारदर्शी आहे". दीदी हे सारं काही इतकं सोप्प करून सांगते. घर बांधताना घर बांधणाऱ्याने मातीला स्पर्श करणे , मातीला समजून घेणे महत्वाचे हे ती आवर्जून सांगते. दीदी म्हणायची - " इथली लोक सिमेंटला मसाला बोलतात, त्यामुळे बांधकामात सिमेंट मसल्याप्रमाणेच वापरायचं, आपण जेवण फक्त मसाल्याने बनवत नाही ना. नुसता मसाला खाणे आरोग्याला चांगलं नाही.. आणि मसाला नाही वापरला तरी चालेल की, कधी कधी फळे, फळभाज्या आपण कच्च्या खतोच ना, आणि ते आरोग्याला सुद्धा चांगलं असत... मातीचसुद्धा तसंच आहे"... दीदी हे खोल ज्ञान इतकं सोपं करून सांगते की ऐकणाऱ्याला ते नुसतं समजत नाही तर ते त्यांच्यात खोलवर रुजत. दिदीच्या बोलण्यात एक आध्यात्मिकता होती. ज्यामुळे तिला ऐकणं हा एक सुखद अनुभव असायचा.  "प्रतीक, तुला माहीत आहे मला माती का आवडते ? ..ती सुकायला वेळ लागतो. मग ती सुकेपर्यंत तू त्यावर हात फिरवून त्याला आकार देऊ शकतो. तुझ्याकडे नेहमीच थोडा जास्त वेळ असतो. सिमेंटसारखी ती लगेच सुकून टणक होत नाही." दिदीचे हे मृदामय विचार मनाचा ठाव घेतात.  दिदीबरोबर शेवटची भेट 2019 च्या उन्हाळ्यात झाली. मी अचानक जायचे ठरवले. काही पूर्वकल्पना न देताच दिदीच्या घरी धडकलो. दीदी नेहमी प्रमाणे लक्ष्मीला एका घराचे डिटेल समाजावत होती. मला अचानक पाहून दीदी खूप खुश झाली. नुकत्याच झालेल्या निवडणुकीच्या निकालाने ती निराश होती. मी येताच ती म्हणाली- " बर झालं तू आलास प्रतीक, तुला पाहिलं की खूप हायस वाटत. तुम्हीच ह्या देशाला योग्य दिशा देऊ शकता. तुम्हाला असं काम करताना पाहिलं की वाटत आता मी कायमस्वरूपी विश्रांती घेऊ शकते". दीदी जेव्हापण असं बोलायची, तेव्हा हृदयाचा ठोका क्षणभर चुकायचा.  दिदीला प्लास्टिक जराही आवडत नाही, पण चॉकोलेट फार आवडायचे. चॉकोलेट प्लास्टिक च्या वेष्टनात येते म्हणून तिला खूप वाईट वाटायचे. एकदा कुडाच्या भिंतीचा विषय निघाल्यावर तिनेच मला सांगितलं- " प्रतीक, मला चॉकोलेट खूप आवडतं, त्याचे प्लास्टिक मी जमा करून ठेवते आणि कुडाच्या भिंतीमधील कॅव्हिटी मध्ये इन्सुलेशन म्हणून वापरते". हे सांगताना ती खट्याळ हसते. तिला माहीत आहे की प्लास्टिकच्या पुनर्वापराचा हा अगदी योग्य पर्याय नाही पण त्यातल्या त्यात तिने चॉकोलेट खाण्याचा पर्याय शोधलेला असतो त्याचा आनंद. दिदीच्या स्वभावातील बालपण कधी संपले नव्हतेच.  दीदीने एकदा चर्चा करता करता अचानक सांगितले-" प्रतीक, तुम्ही तुमच्या भागातल्या आदिवासी घराच्या कुडाच्या भिंतींचा अभ्यास करा, त्याचा प्रसार करा, कुडाच्या भिंती बांधण्याचे तंत्रज्ञान जिवंत राहायला हवे." दीदी हे सहज बोलून गेली. पण हा आयुष्यभराचा कानमंत्र आहे हे मला आणि शार्दूलला समजले.  दिदीच्या बागेत बसलो असताना, दिदीला समजले की मी माझ्या बासऱ्या घेऊन आलो आहे, तिने लागलीच मला बासरी वाजवण्याची विनंती केली. खरंतर मी शिकाऊ बासरी वादक, तरीही ती डोळे मिटून मी जे काही वाजवतोय ते ऐकत होती.  त्या दिवशी रात्री मला बसने दिल्लीला निघायचे होते. भुकेल्या पोटी जाऊ नकोस असं म्हणून दीदी स्वतः स्टूल घेऊन स्वयंपाक घरात बसली आणि चार पराठे माझ्यासाठी बनवले. फडताळावरची स्वतः बनवलेल्या प्लम जॅम ची बाटली काढून माझ्याकडे दिली. त्यावेळी निघताना माझी मनःस्थिती फार द्विधा झाली होती. जावेसे वाटत नव्हते. पराठ्यांची पिशवी हातात धरून मी दिदीच्या पाया पडून निघालो.  5 जुलै माझ्या आईचा वाढदिवस. दुपारी आईला ओवाळून शुभेच्छा देऊन मी ट्रेकसाठी शार्दूलच्या गावी निघालो. दुपारी डोंगरावर चढतानाच दीदी गेल्याची बातमी आली आणि सगळं सुन्न झाले.  दिदीच वय झालंय हे मान्य होत पण तरीही अशी बातमी पचवणं शक्य नव्हतं. दिदीला परत एकदा भेटायचं होत. तिच्याकडून जगण्याची कला शिकून घ्यायची होती.  दिदीच्या जाण्याने नक्की काय झाले?  लाखो पुस्तकांच्या ग्रंथालयाला आग लागून ते बेचिराख झालं तर काय होईल ? त्या ग्रंथालयाच्या ग्रंथातील ज्ञानाचे काय होईल ... दीदी असेच एक ग्रंथालय होती. दिदीच्या संपर्कात आलेल्या कित्येक व्यक्तींनी ह्या ग्रंथालयालतील काहीसे ग्रंथ वाचले असतील. त्यातूनही काहीश्या पानांचा बोध त्यांना झाला असेल.. पण तरीही ह्या ज्ञानाचे पावित्र्य इतके गहिरे आहे की त्यातून केवळ चांगल्याचीच निर्मिती होणार. तिच्या हाताखाली तयार झालेले वास्तुशिल्पी अनुज्ञा, लक्ष्मी आणि अमोल सारख्या वास्तूविषारदाचे काम पाहिले की ह्याची प्रचिती येते. दिदीच्या  जाण्याने समाजाचे, ह्या जगाचे काय नुकसान झाले आहे हे समजावणे कठीण आहे. निसर्गकेंद्रीत वास्तुकलेतून जीवनाचे मर्म सांगणारा ... आम्हा सारख्या नवोदितांना ह्या ज्ञानमार्गाची दिशा दाखवणारा एक ध्रुवतारा क्षणात नाहीसा व्हावा .. असे काहीसे झाले आहे ... ही पोकळी भरून निघणे केव्हाही शक्य नाही.  दीदी जिथे कुठे असेल, तिथेही स्वर्गाची निर्मिती करण्यात दंग असेल.....  प्रतीक धानमेर

Didi I met Didi only three times. The first meeting became possible because of Namrata. I shall remain indebted to her. In the first meeting itself, Didi kept gazing at the bamboo pouch I gave her for almost 20 minutes. She was experiencing each and every weave with her eyes and touch. On seeing every detail, she was just repeating one phrase: “This is beautiful…” Then Didi, Laxmi and I gossipped sumptuously over lunch. The woman who has laid the most promising foundations was asking us questions about mud construction like a fresh student. She asked me to teach her how to test terracotta bottles. She observed me carefully as I performed the test, and would keep telling Lakshmi, “See Lakshmi, this is where we went wrong.” A masterful architect to the likes of Didi acknowledging her mistake so graciously was unbelievable for me. Lakshmi would often tell me, “If Didi is awake, she must certainly be doing some work, resting is not her cup of tea.” Once, I told Didi, “Didi, you must rest a little.” To which, she would smilingly reply, “Prateek, so many things are yet to be completed, so many homes to be made, mud construction has to be popularized, people have to be told about solar cooker, I am writing on Indian kitchens…there are so many deadlines, and at my age these deadlines have implications. As she said this, Lakshmi and I looked at each other. Didi had accepted mortality long ago. She would speak of death with utter simplicity. And so that more and more people could take advantage of her knowledge, she would keep recording her thoughts. She would touch each tree in her garden. Which tree needs how much water, fertilizer - she would observe carefully. Her garden was always organized precisely in the manner she wanted. Didi loved nature to an extent that it was always generous on her garden. It would obey Didi’s instructions… In my three meetings with Didi, I don't remember talking specifically about architecture. Architecture was innate to her living. Didi had personified architecture. Building is a body. It is a living entity. (It isn’t a dead entity). She gives immense importance to the house and the relationships between those living in the house. According to her, a house also has behaviour. It depends on the light, rooms, wind within the house. To see Didi draw her designs on the paper was almost a blessing. Perhaps Michalengelo, while making his sculpture or Tansen while singing his tune might be equally immersed? Didi would construct the house with equal measure of dedication. Promptly, she would turn to Lakshmi and say, “The sun will come here from this window, and by the evening, hop into the house from here to here like a small child.” Didi has brought wind and light in a happy interplay within the house. Any such idea translating from her mind onto the paper would bring her joy that was worth watching. I first entered Didi’s house in the liveliness of her kitchen-wares and utensils. There are no closed cupboards in Didi’s house. Still everything is in its place. She says, “When we meet a person, if he/she is able to express to us what is in their mind without any hesitation, we feel connected to them. Houses are just like that. Whatever I have in my house, is all open. There is nothing to hide. It’s all transparent.” Didi is able to say all this in such a simplified manner. She emphasizes how important it is for the maker of the house to touch and learn the mud with which it will be built. She used to say, “People here call cement as ‘masala’ (mixture), therefore they use it in construction too as ‘masala’. We don’t make food only with ‘masala’, do we? Just eating masala is not good for health. And it is also okay to not use any masala; sometimes we eat fruits, vegetables raw, which are also good for our health. It’s just like that for mud!” Didi is able to share this deep knowledge in such simple words that it is not just comprehensible but also takes deep root in the listeners’ minds. There was a kind of spirituality in Didi’s words, which made listening too a pleasant experience. “Prateek, do you know why I like mud? It takes time to dry. Until then you can mould it. You always have a little more time at hand. It does not dry and harden immediately like cement.” Such fertile thoughts get seeded in the subconscious. My last meeting with Didi happened in the summer of 2019. I just decided to go suddenly. I reached Didi’s house without a warning. Like always, Didi was lovingly explaining the details for a house to Lakshmi. On seeing me suddenly, Didi felt very happy. She was disappointed with the recent elections. As soon as I arrived, she said, “I am glad you came, Pratik, seeing you brings me relief. It is you all who can give this country the right direction. When I see you all working like this, I can now rest permanently.” Whenever Didi used to speak like that, one’s heart used to skip a heartbeat for a moment. Didi disliked plastic to the core, but loved chocolates. She used to feel very guilty about the fact that chocolates are wrapped in plastic. Once while speaking of local wall building technique, she herself told me, “Pratik I really like chocolates; I collect its plastic wrappers and (will) use it as insulation within the cavities of these walls.” She naughtily chuckles while saying this. She knew that this is not the best way to recycle plastic, but having found an immediate solution to her guilt of having the chocolate (and thereby the wrapper) gives her satisfaction. The child in Didi’s behaviour was ineffable. Once while conversing, Didi suddenly said, “Pratik, you all must study the wall construction techniques of the adivasi houses in your region, disseminate the knowledge, the technology of karvi-wall construction must remain alive.” Didi spoke this away quite simply. But this is a life long secret, this Shardul and I understood. While sitting in Didi’s garden, as she understood that I have brought my seat, she asked me promptly to play the flute. Honestly, I am still a learner, still she would close her eyes and listen to whatever I was playing intently. That night I had to take a bus to Delhi. That I must not go hungry, she herself took the stool into the kitchen to make me four parathaas. She pulled out the bottle of plum jam made herself from the fruits and handed over to me. I was in a strange mood while leaving that time. I did not feel like going. I picked up the pouch of parathaas, touched Didi’s feet and left. Every 5th July is my mother’s birthday. After wishing my mother in the afternoon, I left for Shardul’s village for a trek. The news of Didi’s passing away came while we were still climbing the mountain and everything became numb. Although she had grown old, it was difficult to digest this news. I wanted to meet Didi once more. I wanted to learn the art of living from her. What precisely happened from the passing away of Didi? What will happen if you burn away a library filled with a lakh books? What will happen to the knowledge in the books of that library? Didi was one such archive. The many who came in contact with Didi must have read several of these books. From those too, they might have extracted only some amount of learning. But still, the purity of that knowledge is so deep that it will certainly give rise to good design. The architects who got trained under her - namely the works of the likes of Anugya, Lakshmi and Amol are no less than works of masters themselves. It is difficult to explain what loss the society and world will suffer at large on the passing away of Didi. It is something like the disappearance of a guiding star that demonstrates the meaning of life through environmentally oriented architecture… that which leads emerging practitioners like us in this very direction…this vacuum is impossible to fill up. Wherever Didi might be, she will gleefully immersed in the creation of paradise. By Prateek Dhanmer Translated by Anuj Daga Inputs by Milind Mahale

Jhuki Jhuki Si Nazar - Translation

गाना / Title: झुकी झुकी सी नज़र बेक़रार है कि नहीं  (Jhuki Jhuki Si Nazar)

चित्रपट / Film: अर्थ (Arth)

संगीतकार / Music Director: कुलदीप सिंह (Kuldeep Singh)

गीतकार / Lyricist: कैफ़ी आज़मी (Kaifi Azmi)

गायक / Singer(s): जगजीत सिं (Jagjit Singh)

Hindi/Urdu

झुकी झुकी सी नज़र बेक़रार है कि नहीं 

दबा दबा सा सही दिल में प्यार है कि नहीं ... 

तू अपने दिल की जवाँ धड़कनों को गिन के बता... 

मेरी तरह तेरा दिल बेक़रार है कि नहीं... 

वो पल के जिस में मोहब्बत जवान होती है 

उस एक पल का तुझे इंतज़ार है कि नहीं... 

तेरी उम्मीद पे ठुकरा रहा हूँ दुनिया को... 

तुझे भी अपने पे ये ऐतबार है कि नहीं...

Translation

These folding eyes, aren't they anxious

Even if repressed, is your heart soaking in love or not?

Count the times your youthful heart is beating

Just like mine, is your heart restless or not?

That one moment in which the feelings of love blossom

For that one moment, do you await or not?

In chancing your promise, I am rejecting this world

On yourself then, do you have enough faith or not?

Translation: What it means to be in tune?

 

“'सुरात असणं' म्हणजे काय हे माहित नसल्यामुळे ते बेसुरे असतात, की ते बेसुरे असल्यामुळे त्यांना 'सुरात असणं' म्हणजे काय ते माहित नसतं? Can tone-deaf people ever understand that they are tone-deaf?”   त्याचा दुवा मी खाली कमेन्ट्समध्ये देतोय - त्याच्या पोस्टला अनुसरून जे सुचलंय ते इथेही लिहितोय. पोस्ट लांबलचक आहे पण जरूर वाचा. हा संभ्रम होण्याचं एक कारण असं आहे की आपण binaryमध्ये विचार करतो. सूर ‘कळणं’ ही स्वतः एक कला नसली तरी याच्या अनेक कला आहेत (चंद्राच्या असतात तशा). अनेक स्तरांवर आपल्याला सुराचं आकलन होत असतं. काही लोक असतात की ज्यांना सुराची संकल्पनाच कळत नाही. ज्या लोकांना खऱ्या अर्थी आपण tone deaf असं म्हणू शकतो. त्यांना मणेरीकर सर म्हणतात त्या प्रमाणे सुरस्थान मुळातच कळत नाही. हे लोक बहुतांशी संगीताच्या बाबतीतच agnostic असतात. मरीन जिऑलॉजीचं व्याख्यान ऐकण्यात मी जितका तग धरू शकेन तितका वेळ हे एखादं गाणं गुणगुणण्यात किंवा गायनाच्या कार्यक्रमात धरू शकतात. Aptitude नाही त्यामुळे रस नाही अशा प्रकारात हे लोक मोडतात. मग दुसऱ्या प्रकारचे लोक असतात की ज्यांच्या नेणिवेत ते सुरस्थान आहे पण जाणिवेत बिल्कुल नाही. हे लोक जेव्हा गातात तेव्हा बाहेरच्या श्रोत्याला त्यांचं गाणं बेसूर ऐकू येतं पण यांना ते सुरातच ऐकू येतं. एखाद्या रंगांधळ्या व्यक्तीला जसा लाल रंग हिरवा दिसतो त्याप्रमाणे यांना सुरस्थानं दिसतात. या संदर्भात एक रंजक कथा आहे. हिंदुस्थानी संगीतज्ञांमध्ये (musicians या अर्थी) एक जुनी परंपरा आहे. होळीच्या दिवशी प्रचंड बेसूर (पण आपण भलतेच सुरात आहोत असं वाटणाऱ्या) गायकाला बोलवायचं आणि त्याच्या गायनाचा मनमुराद आनंद लुटायचा. (ज्यांनी ‘भेजा फ्राय’ पाहिलाय त्यांना लगेच लक्षात येईल. त्यामधल्या ‘भारत भूषण’ या व्यक्तिरेखेची शास्त्रीय संगीतीतली आवृत्ती असं समजा). गाण्यातल्या जुन्या लोकांना ‘भँवरे पिया’ हे नाव कदाचित आठवेल. तर अशा एका होळीच्या कार्यक्रमात असेच एक न-गायक आले होते. सुमारे पाऊण तास पट्ट्या बदलत, बेसूर, बेताल असा त्यांनी आपला performance दिला. गाण्यातले अनेक दिग्गज त्यांच्या गाण्याची ‘मजा’ घेत होते. श्रोत्यांमध्ये पं. सत्यशील देशपांडे होते. या महोदयांचं गाणं झाल्यानंतर सत्यशीलजी मंचावर गेले आणि त्या गायकांना नेमकी काय स्वराकृती दिसत असेल याचा सुरेल तर्जुमा त्यांनी ऐकवला! तात्पर्य असं की या लोकांना आपण सुरेलच गातोय असा भास होत असतो. या लोकांना आपण बेसुरे आहोत हे कुठलाही युक्तीवाद पटवून देऊ शकत नाही कारण हे स्वतःचं गाणं वेगळ्याच मितीतून ऐकत असतात जिथे ते सुरेलच असतं. गंमत अशी आहे की यांना सुरेल लोकांचं गाणं नेमकं कसं ऐकू येत असेल हे आपण सांगू शकत नाही कारण हा अनुभूतीचा प्रश्न आहे तर्काचा नव्हे! मग पुढचा गट येतो तो मणेरीकर सर म्हणतात त्याप्रमाणे ज्यांना सुराची जाणीव असते पण मेंदूने दिलेला सिग्नल गळा ट्रान्सलेट करू शकत नाही. या लोकांना ही जाणीव असते की आपण गातोय ते सुरात नाही. हे लोकही ठार बेसुरे असतात पण त्यांना याची कल्पना असते. आता तुझा जो प्रश्न आहे तो या गटाला relevant आहे. म्हणजे आपण बेसुरे आहोत हे कळणं म्हणजे सुरांची जाण असणं आहे का? तर याचं उत्तर आहे - पूर्णपणे नाही! आपण बेसुरे असल्याची जाण असणं म्हणजे आपण बेसुरे असण्याची जाण असणं. उदाहरणार्थ मला पूल बांधता येत नाही इतकाच साक्षात्कार होणं म्हणजे इंजिनियरिंगची जाण असणं नाही तसंच आहे हे! कारण ‘सुरांची जाण’ याला अनेक प्रतल आहेत. ही बिगरी आहे. पण गाण्याचा आस्वाद डोळसपणे घेऊ शकणं या लोकांना सहज शक्य आहे. ऑम्लेटची चव कळण्यासाठी, कोंबडी होऊन अंडीच देता आली पाहिजेत असं नाही तसंच आहे हे. इथपासून studied listening मधून व्यासंग वाढवता येऊ शकतो. पुढचा गट आहे की त्याला सुरस्थानं कळली आहेत पण ती गळ्यावर चढली नाहीत. हे लोक सहसा पट्टी न सोडता गाऊ शकतात पण एखादी गुगली जागा खळेंच्या किंवा हृदयनाथांच्या गाण्यात आली तर हुकतील. पण हे लोक स्वाभाविकपणे गाण्याचा उत्तम आस्वाद घेऊ शकतात. मग असा गट आहे की ज्यांना सुरात गाता येतं पण तितका रस नसल्यामुळे असेल किंवा इतर काही कारणांमुळे असेल ते या नैसर्गिक क्षमतेचा विस्तार करत नाही. आता यात एक गोष्ट लक्षात घ्यायला हवी. की गाणाराच माणूस उत्तम आस्वाद घेऊ शकतो ही अंधश्रद्धा आहे. काही लोकांचं आकलन फार उत्तम असतं पण सांगितिक articulation उत्तम असेलच असं नाही. आणखी एक गट मला फार महत्त्वाचा वाटतो. त्यांना संगीतामधलं काही कळत नाही पण त्यांच्या क्षेत्रात त्यांचं पांडित्य असतं. असे लोक (आणि हे केवळ माझं निरीक्षण आहे) फार वेगळ्या पद्धतीने गाण्याचा रसास्वाद घेतात. संगीतकार म्हणून मला अशा लोकांना माझं गाणं ऐकवायला फार आवडतं. त्यांची दाद ही त्यांच्या disciplineच्या तर्काने देत ते असतात. तो तर्क मला जाणवला तर मी कमालीचा आनंदित होतो. यात कवी, साहित्यिक, चार्टर्ड अकाउंटंट, वकील, शास्त्रज्ञ कुणीही असू शकतं. नियम एकच - आपल्या क्षेत्रामध्ये त्यांचं केवळ नैपुण्य नव्हे तर पांडित्य असावं. सारांश असा की सुरांची जाण वेगवेगळ्या लोकांना वेगवेगळ्या प्रतलावर होत असते. ती बायनरी नसून degreesमध्ये असते. यातच तुझ्या प्रश्नाचं उत्तर सामावलेलं आहे. - कौशल ईनामदार च्या वॉलवरून.

“[Are some people] ‘tone-deaf / off-pitch’[1] because they don’t know what it means to be in pitch, or are they off-pitch and hence they do not understand what it means to be ‘in pitch’? [In simple words:] Can tone-deaf people ever understand that they are tone-deaf?” I am giving links in the comments below - I am also writing here what I have understood following his post. The post is long but worth reading. One of the reasons this dilemma arises is due to our binary mode of thinking. Even if understanding (perceiving) pitch is not an art by itself, it still has a lot of aspects to it (just like the phases of the moon). The registration of musical notes keeps happening [in the mind] at many levels. There are many people who just do not understand the concept of musical notes. These, we can call tone-deaf in the true sense. To them, as Rajendra Manerikar says, the position of the note is just not legible. Such people are largely agnostic towards music/musicality. Their interest in humming a song or in a musical programme will only be as much as I would have in listening to a lecture in marine geology! They don’t have aptitude, and hence they can’t take pleasure – that’s the way these people are categorised. Then there are the second kind of people who have the sensitivity of understanding the position of the musical notes, but not conscious about it. When these people sing, their music is off-tune to the audience, but to their ear, it seems to be in tune. They identify the position of notes just like how a colour-blind person sees red as green. There is an interesting story in this context. In Hindustani music, (in the sense of musicians), there is an old tradition. On the occasion of Holi, an extremely off-pitch singer (but assuming that one is absolutely in tune) would be called and their singing would be enjoyed to the fullest. (Those who have seen ‘Bheja Fry’ will immediately realise. Think of the character of Bharat Bhushan in it as the figure of the classical musician). The older musical people will probably remember the name of ‘Bhanvar Piya’.[2] So, in one such Holi programme, a similar non-singer had come. He gave his performance in an inconsistent, absurd manner, changing the pitches for about half an hour. The many musical veterans present were ‘enjoying’ his music. In the audience was Pt. Satyasheel Deshpande. After the gentleman’s performance, Satyasheelji went on stage and demonstrated the musical universe the singer must be imagining. Meaning, such people believe that they have been singing in tune. There is no way in which any one can convince them that they were off-pitch since they have been listening to their singing from an altogether different dimension from where it seems to them perfectly in pitch. The funny thing is that we may never be able to say how they must be perceiving the music of people who indeed sing in tune, because this is a matter of experience, not of logic. Then comes the next group, those who as Manerikar Sir suggests, are aware of the notes but whose throat cannot translate the signal given by their brain. These people are aware that what they are singing, but it may not be (or is not) in tune. These people too are far off-tune, but they have an idea of it. Now the question that you are asking is relevant to this group. Meaning, does the fact that we can identify that we are off-pitch mean that we have knowledge of music? The answer to this question is – not completely! To be able to recognize ourselves off-pitch in a given moment indicates that we may also note when we are off-pitch generally. For example, it is similar to the fact that recognizing that I don’t know how to build a bridge simply means to acknowledge that I do not have enough knowledge about engineering. Because the knowledge of musical notes has several referential bases. Knowing the notes is just the most basic requirement for music. But it is possible for such people to appreciate music with their eyes. It is just like (arguing) how in order to appreciate the taste of an omelette, you don’t necessarily need to be a chicken and lay an egg. But from this point, one can invest and expand into the discipline of studied listening. The next group is one of those who know the position of the note, but it has still not become a memory of their throat. These people can usually sing in a single pitch, but if they encounter a googly musical spot like in the songs of Khale or Hridaynath, they will fumble. But these people can naturally take great pleasure of music. Then there is a group who can sing melodiously but since they are not immersed as much or for other reasons, they are unable to expand upon their natural capacities. Now here, we must take note of one thing – to think that only the singer can take deep pleasure of music – is a blind belief. There are many people whose analysis is quite sharp but musical articulation may not necessarily be at par. There is one more group that I feel is quite important. They don’t know anything about music but they are experts in their own field. Such people (and this is just my observation) take musical pleasure in a very different manner. As a musician, I really like to present my music to them. They even offer their appreciation through the perspective of their own discipline. Learning their logic of interpretation gives me a lot of happiness. This may include a poet, literary scholar, chartered accountant, lawyer, scientist – anyone. Just one rule – if not dexterity, they must be experts of their fields. To summarise, different people register music through different referential bases. Rather than binary, it’s a range. The answer to your question is situated in this very range. -From Kaushal Inamdar’s wall *** Translation: Anuj Daga Inputs by Manas Vishwaroop

---

[1] In Hindustani Music, ‘tone’ and ‘pitch’ refer to the ‘quality/texture’ of sound and the ‘accurate frequency’ of notes respectively. In western music tone also means difference of one note. To be sure, the discussion here is about being in pitch, an aspect referred to as ‘tone-deafness’ in western music.

[2] Incorrectly written ‘Bhanvre Piya’ in Marathi

Ghei Chhand Makarand / Translation

Film: Katyar Kaljyat Ghusli

Composition: Shankar Mahadevan

Singers: Shankar Mahadevan, Rahul Deshpande

घेई छंद मकरंद, प्रिय हा मिलिंद
मधुसेवनानंद स्वच्छंद, हा धुंद
मिटता कमलदल होई बंदी हा भृंग;
परि सोडिना ध्यास, गुंजनात दंग


Translation:

Takes pleasure of the nectar, lovingly, the honeybee

Savouring unworriedly the sweetness, immersed

as it still suckles, the flower petals fold in the bee

Yet unfettered in its trapping, its hum-buzz persists