Kafkaesque models

TEXT - WORDS - IMAGE - BUILDING

Over the past 3 years we have been trying to formulate programmes which translate text into a physical landscape. Our endavours to engage with text have primarily been to inculcate may aspects into the studio. A study of Adrian Forty's "Words & Buildings" will give a worthwhile explanation of how we negotiate through language to communicate intangible ideas and how they finally get understood and manifested. In such transfer of ideas from faculty to student, and student to physical form, wide gaps are created. These gaps are because of the varying levels of understanding at which thoughts are exchanged. Much of the times, these thoughts are physically manifested as literal.

I have been trying to exactly define what does one mean by 'being literal' in architecture over the past 2 years. There is one mode of explanation that I generally use.
If you say,
A = B
A = C
then make B = C,
(where A is a word, B, C is a meaning)
you will be making something literal.
Mathematical logic in equating words & meanings perhaps makes architecture literal. The words we use for communicating our thoughts in architecture can be translated literally. Much of the goof up happens in verbalizing. While faculties talk of ideas, students understand it as words and dictionary meanings.

However, in this process, we were able to generate some interesting forms - sloping, crooked, twirling, swirling, spherical, conical, biological, etc. Only that none of the forms were placed in an appropriate site context. We have to still investigate how the interaction of form and site should be instructed. An architectural form is a result of not only the externalities of context, but also responds to the interior functions. This complex process, when well balanced along with all other default parameters like light, ventilation, circulation, etc allows for a debate at the next step. In juries, we ignore much of it and still are not able to talk of architecture.

However, if I was to evaluate text-based-entries to generate design solutions, we have to care to make students aware of the following:
1. When do you choose a text to intervene in a site.
2. On what basis shall you choose the text - how do you make a text relevant for a project
3. Do you use text as meaning or as concrete poerty? In other words, how do you use the text?
4. How should you rephrase architecture as words?
5. How should your building 'read' as text?

And there are many more, but the above questions are highly complex. What we wish to do is to expose the students to reading, thereby imagination and visualization. At that level, the project does open up points of debate. A lot of effort needs to then educate oneself on exposing to a lot of text-to-visual translations.

I don't really blame students, it's too early to manage all of it together. Perhaps if we could control our ambitions and design more feasible projects, it would be better for students. Although studios would be dry then, we should be able to bring out much more interesting and promising work.

Teachers's Day 2000

Ten years ago on this day, I was preparing for a lecture on "Biosphere" for class 9. The next day was going to be Teachers' day and students were going to pose as teachers and take a class. I was excited. Most of my classmates taught lower classes and were surprised of my choice to teach a class immediate to mine (I was in class 10 then - my matriculation year). Moreover, it was a subject handled by one of our strictest teachers in the school. However, I wasn't intimidated.

The next day was fun. We dressed up as teachers and went to classes to see how our peers performed and what responses they got from students. Later during the day, it was my class. Although many would pass of this day as waste, I conducted a serious lecture. I explained each part of the lesson using my own version of notes. Students asked questions later and I clarified each and every doubt. The jury went around classes and looked at how we conducted classes.

At the end of the day, results were announced. To my surprise, I was declared to be the Best Student Teacher. I was thrilled and excited. My friends were surprised of me handling class 9 being just one year senior.

The story wasn't over. I was only thinking that this was just a one sided affair. The jury felt that I conducted a good class. The next day, as I attended my regular lectures, the Geography teacher of class 9 (the strictest one, as I said before and our class teacher then), came to my class in person and shouted:

"Anuj, what have you done?"
I was scared! I asked, "Why, what did I do ma'am?"
"They are not letting me inside the class, they say they want you!" she was referring to the students of class 9.

This had  never happened in the history of our school before. Most student teachers pass off the day for fun, but I was quite passionate about it! She never taught the lesson to that class later - they only discussed questions on it. I felt truly appreciated and hence, the certificate below is very precious to me.

Perhaps there would be no better time than this to relive this part of my history. What importance do such certificates that we win during school times hold ? - probably they only gave us confidence then. But they have certainly helped / shaped our current trajectories...

Baghban IV

In the past few weeks, I have been questioning, rather understanding the construct of the institution of Indian family. How does the Indian family work. What are its codes? What are the roles of each person in the family? How is one made/supposed to behave? What if one does not follow the codes? How does it rupture one's way of living or operating then?

If family is our first school, then a lot of rules are set up within this institution. The Indian family is very hierarchical. The hierarchy dictates the code of conduct. Essential values like respect, truth (honesty), economy are controlled by this hierarchical setup. What one must speak and how one must talk to any one is also a political construct of this hierarchy. Unfortuantely, this hierarchy continues till you die, so there is not way to peek into your parents' lives by pointing at them any questions. Questions can easily be screened through the wall of hierarchy: "How dare you ask this question?"

However, a bigger problem is that all these values conceptually conflict and contradict each other. We are taught to be truthful and honest in our childhood. We are asked to talk politely to elders. We should respect others, and all that! In the real life, these actions are guided by factors completely unknown to us. There are times when our parents themselves refute their taught value systems. Money is a funny issue! All this while, my father maintained that life was larger than money, and these days he says that money is very important in life.

A major portion of the education from family or school is imparting certain idealist values in a person. These ideals were created and suited to a certain historic time and space. Do these values work in today's world? Does the conceptual framework of the formation of ideal ideas change? Are ideal thoughts sacred? Ideals create a lot of friction in the real world. The family never addresses this issue. Why does the ideal get so much importance in our lives when it never holds true? Why are we made to believe in this apparent truth, which ceases to exist? What consolation do we seek for in honesty? I don't understand. The family has to teach a small slice of corruption or to be flexible to corruption. We don't live in an ideal space and we have to be groomed for such a space right from the beginning.

Schools have to teach us to be tactical, opportunistic! Unfortunately, we only learn this when we grow 60 years old - that knowledge conveniently classifies as wisdom! By then we already lose on all luxuries of life - then they say, be happy of the fact that you never committed a crime! I say - well, those who committed are living far comfortably! Truth is over-rated, honesty too. Yes, we do need it, but in a world like this, family values itself have to change.

History:

Baghban
Baghban II
Baghban III

This post needs more clarification and elaboration. It shall be done in subsequent time.

Toys

Since a long time now, I have been wanting to write a post on the kind of toys I played with in my childhood. This thought was triggered primarily by two things: the reading of Roland Barthes'  "Toys" from Mythologies and my discussion on the same some time ago with a students during the Humanities lecture. Rather, I wanted to test if my toys have really shaped me!? I thereby started to write on cartoons too. But that article is not complete yet. I  have to refine it further such that I can make it into a formal paper.

I hardly remember what were my childhood toys like! Perhaps I must have thrown them, chewed them or swallowed some of it - I dont know! The faintest memory of my first toys is a jumping chicken which my mother brought for me after I got my teeth extracted! It was a white furry chicken which lasted for a long time and needed to be keyed. Yes, there were a lot of toys which worked on keys. My uncle used to travel to foreign countries very frequently. He had then got us (my brother and me) a car each. Mine was an old style fiat! I loved it. I would keep rolling it around my axis! During 1990 we had the opportunity to go to Singapore. My parents got a lot of toys for us from there. They were mostly electronic. Electronic toys could be trusted being imported! But it was an eclectic mix - a golden robot, 2 fighting tanks, a set of cars - all of it worked on batteries! I don't remember but there must have been a lot more! We must have misplaced them here and there.

As we grew, our choice of toys became peculiar. I was drawn to more human toys, more subtle; while my brother to the  more destructive and aggressive! I had a distinct liking for teddy bears! They were quite expensive then. So my first and the only teddy bear was stitched by my mother. My aunt gifted me another one on my birthday some time later. I kept them for a long time! I also remember buying a doctor's set - I would see myself as one! It had plastic scissors, cotton, bandage, a fake thermometer - all that! I still remember it cost Rs. 28/-. We got toys only on two occasions: on getting a good result or on a birthday. There were no un-occasional toys. 

Further I invested more in the GI joes - they were really marketed well and I wanted to almost make a collection. Over 4 years, I could collect only 4 of them, through which I would weave stories and plays. Immediately then, the teddy bear became the monster due to its size...Cars were all half broken so they could carry the gi joes...I had enough material to create a setting.

Later, I invested in toys like the safari (cars going through a track), i also had "The Young Architect" and "The Mechanix". I took a game on cricket too, which i seldom played! But these were the toys through which I really experimented a lot! I would not stick only to the manuals, but would go on to make more exciting moving things. 

There is another aspect to the whole story - games: all sorts from board games to the virtual ones (video games and computer games). I had distinct liking for games. I would play games like Business or Ludo with my friend and I guess it informs my notions of 'circulation' that I use in my architectural work today. Computer games like Prince of Persia and Digger presented the world of 'sections' to me. Later as we played newer games, they appeared in perspective. Spaces revealing themselves in perspective were scary...sectional spaces were so much subtler! Games like Tetris on the video games probably taught me articulation - of fitting things together compactly. I had immense liking for racing games. I don't know if they really induced in me the idea of competition. But I developed immense amount of patience and perseverance through these games.

All such games and toys made a definite space around me - a very human like, mechanical environment. Gijoes were a great way to understand anthropometrics and mechanix taught me structure. I think these toys contributed to a lot of my architectural knowledge. I still have all my toys, well preserved - to an extent that my parents are fed up of me. I don't share them with my nephews since they would immediately break them into pieces! Although some of them have been destroyed.

But I am going to try to theorize the above! It's just a descriptive account meanwhile. Somewhere, it does make me different from my brother's aggressive nature coming from his toys like the gun, or the bat, or the WOLF or DOOM he played on computer...Hence the Barthes connect...

Don't our toys shape us!? I have been wanting to pull the idea of toys in studio, especially since Prasad Shetty mentioned it last year to which I refuted. But I guess I am going to think about it seriously to be able to understand and derive newer expressions from the idea of toys and games...lets see...

Taj - Mumbai

Practice

Any kind of artistic practice involves so much of manipulation. There is so much to and fro in achieving an end. Take water colour for example. The artist uses washes over and over again , sucks or drops more colour and keeps on repeating the process until the desired result is achieved.

The process of repetition is the key to a rich product. Repetition allows overlay and thus gives a lot of depth to work. Depth gives multiple readings of a single work and it creates different moods during different times. Oil painters keep on mixing colours till they achieve the desired result. This process is perhaps meditative.

Architects use tracings, through which they repeat processes. Through repetition and mixing, one may layer ideas. It also involves iteration of mistakes, then correcting them. One keeps going back and forth, revising the earlier thought at each step. Thus these processes are not linear, neither cyclic. They are like eddies, which keep micromanaging themselves. Such processes give rise to techniques, which can be used in varying scales of work. 

I work on my writing like above. I first write in the crudest possible way. Probably because I think in mixed languages. Then I try giving it coherence, by first putting it grammatically correctly, then polishing sentences, words and phrases. But I purposely delay all these steps since every time I read my text afresh, I am able to refine it further. At one go, all seems fine, but in another instance, it appears terribly wrong. Many a times, I find no relevance of a plenty of texts that I once began writing. Then I realize how convoluted my mind is. I discard a lot of such texts. I also preserve a lot of such texts, only to laugh at my silliness. But when I look back, I can estimate how far have I come. And this is the reason why archives are important. They allow to trace trajectories.

The Discourse of Form

"The discourse of architectural form has become obsolete...who talks of form today? The debate on form is an old issue now,"

"India has not entered, or even managed to enter the discourse of architectural form" - I discussed with the new team of Architecture Design first year. The debate was about the role of form in architecture.

India-trained architects immediately understand form as "iconic" and label it as pejorative. In Indian context, I think the idea of form itself is borrowed. The emphasis of space in Indian architecture is so strong that we fear to deal with ideas of form. Formal responses in architecture have never satisfied the community in India. They have only served the craving for aesthetic or beauty, or otherwise invited a lot of criticism for a-contextual responses. Indian architectural community has not successfully placed a form that generated a dialectic - an argument in a mature architectural sense. All bold forms here can be so easily classified as copied or adopted.

Vernacular has become a style, instead of a cultural manifest. Why doesn't present cultural condition fuel the design of form in architecture? Why don't cultural processes shape form? They are either expressionistic or reproductions of the past. Do buildings talk to each other in the city? We have not, in the real sense, explored the function of architecture as a formal message... Architecture has so much potential to communicate in space. How does Antilia talk to Kanchunjunga? How do buildings in the IIT campus talk to each other? How do the tall buildings respond to each other? Do our cultural institutions talk to each other? All architects are only writing off buildings. Statements is not the way I want to talk of form. In fact, I am talking of form as response in 3-dimensional space. What meanings do forms hold? Can we tap them? Can we play with the imagery, yet be spatial? Any debates, disconnects...post here...

Post buildings, we shall discuss...

Sketches - Ideas

Most of the above sketches are states of the mind. These are done over the last 2 years randomly and I am only putting them here as a memory of the past.
In order: (Sketch / Idea)

• Glass within a glass / Overflowing desire
• Branches / Directions
• Water Level Balance / Manipulation
• Balloon & Knot / Holding nothing
• Knot Study / Obstruction
• Street USB 
• A chance encounter between an umbrella and a sewing machine.
• Lemon Cut / Abstraction 

Of Cultural Movements

Globalization:
The process of globalization is characterized by 2 main concepts:

1. Idea
2. Computer & Technology

The process of globalization is characterized by the fact that it doesnot have boundaries - it is open to everyone. The fact that an idea can be explored and presented openly provided a greater opportunity to individuals.  For example, Sabeer Bhatia was just a drop out from his college when the idea of Hotmail struck to him. The idea was accepted in the market and it had many takers.

Globalization furthers easy exploration by making technology accessible to everyone. It thus assumes a democratic status. Computer and technology are the major factors providing momentum to globalization. The mantra of globalization is mobility, speed, dynamism and fast pace. The era of globalization sees an upward trend in movement. Movement of not only people, but funds, technology, ideas, income, etc.

Glocalisation:
The manifestation of global ideas into local environments is colloquially called glocalization. Glocalisation is the appropriation of the global into local.

Mc Donaldization:
The a-contextual prototyping of built forms is termed as Mc Donaldization. It is the establishment of visual identity of a built form in space which disregards specificities of a place.

Coca-colization:
It is a term used pejoratively to imply the rise in western consumerist culture and westernization (rather Americanization?) of all cultures in general.

Summarized over discussion with Padma Desai in 2007-8. The above explanations must not be taken as precise or accurate.

Economy & Social Relations

Economy restructures every aspect of life today. Right from the area you live to the friends you make. Your spending potential is something that strongly configures the choices you make. Why do we find that our friends (the ones whom we consider closer to us) are mostly within our own economic bracket? As students come in a mixed group in a class, we immediately find them flocking into their own 'secure' economic groups. I think the spending potential defines the way we are brought up, the way we think and the way we would eventually want to spend. However, how beneficial is that anyway?

Generally, it is very difficult to communicate on money matters or spending potentials with friends while studying. This is one area where friendship doesnot always succeed. Are our friends able to accept us beyond our monetary constraints? To critically look at the situation, we already define our friend circles within our own economic range. Many a times, we also end up spending irrationally...

The middle class is seldom confident with its economic status. It is a highly unstable, unsure and aspiring class of the society. Money, and only more money gives it confidence and stability. What kind of change will a confident middle class make? I am not sure. Education automatically distances people - historically, knowledge and money have always been related and these two factors eventually structured the society. 

Academic studies are very refined and primarily engage the middle class for its livelihood (learn > earn).

But it would be refreshing to see some inter-economic bracket strong friendship bonds. I haven't seen them in a while. Probably I haven't seen them ever except films! Does it mean that even films have failed to erase such economic differences? I am not sure if i am conveying what I want to say here clearly. Probably I am trying to understand how money structures social relations. The virtual world completely destroys it. It successfully challenges economic hierarchies. I like that about the virtual world. Something that I learnt during my thesis, on globalization, during my discussion with my guide Padma Desai. I shall digitize that conversation from my thesis diary here...