Problematising Academy of Architecture

I am writing this post through an understanding of Prasad Shetty's paper (the title of which I forget) on the mishandling of the city of Mumbai. Shetty argues (hints?) that the existence of multiple agencies, each which have their own interests and procedures of working in the city layer themselves upon each other, entangling them into a messy condition. Further, the non communication or the mis-communication between these agencies worsens the ways in which gaps are enlarged between the desired and the delivered product. Also, aspirations of different agencies are different and driven through a variety of forces, which are ultimately controlled or subjected through an altogether separate governing body which comprehends, schedules, funds and disseminates them, creating larger distortion.

Wondering of the condition of Academy of Architecture, I began thinking of it as sets of people (which could be analogical to the agencies above). Talking of condition, the question is why doesn't Academy function as it should or why is it not able to produce the kind of output it can / is capable of. One can locate / try to locate the problem at two levels - the scale of the institution as a set of functioning teams an the other at the level of the individual within these teams (if we may begin to call them so - teams of individuals - or sets of individuals). 

To begin with finding issues with the teams, one sees that the academy does not really have a vision - a vision for its students, for its intellectual future. This leads to different sets of people forming their own micro visions which may not necessarily be converging, although which may overlap. I would specifically like to point out a few distinct sets that exist meanwhile:

• the management (the funding team/team who has financial control/the fuel of the institute),
• the permanent faculty team (the intellectual team/team which drives the institute/the engines of the institute), 
• the visiting faculty team (the wheels of the institute), 
• the non teaching administrative staff (the lubricants of the system), and finally 
• the students (of course the consumers of the institute). 

One can talk about all these sets in great detail, only to come to a solution that all these sets have different imaginations that lead into different directions. To talk about the complexity of the project of the Academy, one could brief it as thus (the description below is fuzzy, but it shall take a long thesis to give descriptive details of each set):

The students come with an extremely glorified image of the institute - an image which to a large extent may remain true, but muddled when one sees the Academy having complexities of space, infrastructure, people, etc. However, as students get consumed in the course, they realize the problems with the course itself. Through their own limited imagination(s), they try to problematize the academic trauma, which always ends up in pointing out the resource crisis. The visiting teaching staff have their own agendas and come from different schools of thought. Old, new, young, open, conservative, philosophical, professional, academic, theoretical, technical - all kinds of teachers do all kinds of things trying to reach at a common goal, which seldom is achieved. Within their subjects they have their own visions and aspirations. Some crave for newness, others to maintain minimum required standards. What else shall one expect of mass education?

The permanent staff comprises of a range of people whose objectives are misplaced. Some look at the institution  as a place of work, some as a place to spend time in, others look at it as a place to educate, teach and learn. The least common denominator for such cross overs is to abide by the University syllabus. On the extreme end, the heads envision a large academic change, where they are unable to locate Academy in the larger picture, and further unable to locate a position for the student in the academic sphere. Meanwhile they struggle between revising curriculums, revising faculty attitudes, student attitudes, course structures and all possible things related to architecture education. 

Lastly, the non teaching staff have their own dynamic politics with the management, faculty and students. The largeness institution that increases the presence of this set in number, makes it a powerful body which creates micro-politics of information-dissemination between students, faculty and perhaps management. Taking advantage of the lack of resources, scrutiny and loose system, they manipulate things in their own ways. The management is the supreme - which decides the fate of every thing that exists on the premises. It's agenda is to make Academy a mega institution which sets the cycle of making money and introducing new courses. the management, as it appears, consists of capitalistic, short sighted individuals who have not been able to formulate a vision beyond the banyan tree. 

These different imaginations produce a lot of friction when various sets interact inevitably with each other. Where does an academic locate oneself in such a web - one questions. Further, what possible future shall we imagine of this institution? What future does one foresee of oneself with this institution - an institution which shall take perhaps 50 more years to find the right people and system to resolve its web of complexities? Rohan Shivkumar always says that every Institution goes through this phase of deterioration, giving the example of JJ College of Architecture, which today almost rots in the ideologies of archaic individuals; the physical space also speaks of it - the large BMC garbage can that welcomes you to an old grey building...


Academy meanwhile plans to just facelift itself. It's high time it gave itself booster injections and some internal nourishment so that it grows. Or else, I just proposed to one of my colleagues: the Banyan must be stripped of its leaves - it needs new ones.

Spatial Structure of Poetry

(above image from the blogpost  "A story in waiting" on dagagiri dated Nov. 29, 2008)

The trickling water
From the air conditioner pipe
A sparrow gulps down.

(an attempt at Haiku, Anuj Daga)

***

Poetry essentially consists of fractured statements. The empty space between the word-constructions allow for new grammars to configure. It is the suspended grammar that perhaps makes space for new.imagination to take place. The emptiness sometimes brings two stranger words / ideas close together allowing us to.see different dimensions of existing worlds.

If consecutive words of a dictionary were to be read as a sentence, they would give us a great way to look at the landscape of words and meanings. Since if we consider that the dictionary is the modernist way of word family structures, consecutive words in a dictionary are neighbours belonging to a same family - in terms of physical characteristics, the alphabets (genes) they are constructed out of; the pronunciations of syllables (body parts), etc. However, their ages may be different with regard to their etymologies and they may have different meanings, functions and behaviours.

Such a landscape of words may become an extremely interesting investigation. Poetry is thus a landscape of words, creating new meanings and relies on the readers' potential to be able to make sense if such landscape for the interpretation of the real existing world. If architecture was poetry, it could possibly be very postmodern...bringing together different ideas and symbols together. But then there is rhythm, rhyme and spatial experience too at play. This would mean finding meaning into the empty spaces, pauses or fractures between words of a poetry.

Charles Correa Gold Medal 2012

The Charles Correa Gold Medal 2012 was not awarded to any one.

I had a similar strange feeling yesterday as I took a round after all students pinned up their work. (Being the organizer of the event, one gets to see stuff before any one else, even jury gets to have a look!). As Prof. Punde inspected the room over the evening asking for a good panel to look at, I exclaimed "None!" - Adding further, "One year, they must just not give the gold medal to any one..." To my surprise, I actually found my evaluation was correct! Not only that, my instincts of notable panels was also right - they same 3 panels I thought (exactly those) were cited! Wonder what this meant!

One can clearly point out where things go wrong for gold medal.

1. The fad to compose larger and large (bed)sheets, which students are incapable to compose efficiently, ends up making them hoardings rather than architectural sheets

2. Overly rendered drawings, too many colours, background, flashy views are an eye sore.

3. Panels filled with overflowing essays of analysis. Writeups that flow in every blank inch of space.

4. Pictures like wedding albums, sprinkled all over the analysis panels or design sheets.

5. Unclear drawings, obnoxiously large, pixelated, unoriented, mixing into each other.

6. Non-contextual, irrationally large urban design projects thinking of them to be urban inserts. (a flaw on the part of universities which expect large thesis projects so that students are able to display their skills in all aspects of architecture)

7. Misplaced aesthetic sensibilities - in design, layout (of sheets) and presentation.

And one could probably go on.

The 3 citations, two from KRVIA and another from Bharati Vidyapeeth seemed interesting. I remember pointing out to Punde Sir about Marsha's thesis (KRV: Resonant Memories) that although the panel is poetic, I had serious questions about the program (which was the typical library, exhibition, etc.) - and the jury did pointed that along with circulation issues. I also felt the project layout did not fit in the countour layout well. The jury did appreciate the water colour drawings, that forced me to bring Punde Sir to have a look at it. (Ok, I must clarify I wasn't with the jury, and it was a closed room affair!). The Modern Temple (Dipti, BVP) was well articulated and I knew it was challenging, but it ended up in the shikhara! One would try to look at what Frank Llyod Wright did to Unity temple, which was the first 'modern' church as compared to the classical imagery of the church, in analysing what is a 'modern' form. I did not particularly keenly see the third entry (Nupoor, KRV). It seemed interesting in the way it was composed.

Out of the 21 entries that were received, none of them, the jury felt, lived up to the brief offered to them. They decided to award none on the grounds that, "it would be unfair to the earlier winners who had put in much more hard work" and because they "need to maintain the standards of the Charles Correa Gold Medal" (Kamu Iyer).

Prof. Hazra pointed out very sensitively that "it seemed that many projects were almost there, had there been a little more guidance, would there be really interesting projects". He also candidly expressed that one involuntarily gets into a mode of comparison with the projects that have earlier received the Gold Medal, which seemed much promising. The entries this time only lacked visual communication skills, presentation of analysis and lack of design resolution.

Charles Correa concluded saying that "You all look very disappointed, but that does not mean that you did not put in hard work. All of you have put in a lot of effort, but don't be disappointed since it's a part of life. There will be so many times when clients will not like your design and you will have to start all over again...you all must try and put in your design intent more clearly..."

Students huddled him up as he left the premises - they discussed issues, ideas and what went wrong. After all, Charles Correa still remains a figure in Indian architecture to catch a memorable glimpse of. I re-lived my three year old excitement seeing the students' pin drop silence in the auditorium. This decision only makes the Gold Medal more coveted and desirable, raising the already tall stature of Charles Correa.

Dil Chahta Hai

Bhankas on Nashik tour to Gauri's wedding with friends:

Dhaval ordered a paper dosa and it turned out to be exceptionally large. 

Atit: Didnt u mention the paper size? 

Richa: I can't eat the wada pav
Anuj: Why? 
Richa: Getting very heavy...
Anuj: Who? You? 

Constantly missing deadlines for Gauri's wedding function, alok had an idea (remembering college days' Gauri saying "lecture chalu hua toh missed call de") 

Alok: Lets ask Gauri to give us a missed call when she's to do the next event. 

Looking at a small aquarium at Nashik city centre overcrowded with fishes, I wondered if one could give them extra space to float.

Dhaval exclaimed, "it's SRA scheme"

In the sanctity of the Manas Hotel's cafe on the way to Nashik, we called for the waiter and said:
Dhaval: 6 teas
Waiter: ok
Dhaval: wait, do you have hot chocolate?
Waiter: yes
Dhaval: ok, them make it 5 teas and 1 hot chocolate
Waiter: ok
Anuj: wait, even I want to try it. Make it 4 teas and 2 hot chocolates
Waiter:  ok sir (starts going)
Manali: Even I dont mind it. Waiter, waiter (calling out). Make it 3 teas and 3 hot chocolates
We look at Richa, Ritu and Alok - ????
Ritu: No I want tea!
Waiter: (flustered) ok
All of us then remebered with the confused taste of chocolate milk aka exaggerated bournvita:
Anuj: Mujhe mera bachpan yaad aa gaya. Mummy aise hi bournvita deti thi.
Dhaval: abhi jaldi khatam kar
Anuj: Mummy bhi aise hi bolti thi
Manali: Mujhse khatam nahi hoga itna saara...
Anuj: Mai bhi aise hi bolta tha!


While getting to Gauri's wedding reception, it was election time and hence declared 'dry day' the next day in Nashik. We were very excited to try out wines at Sula vineyard in  Nashik. It would be open only till 8 30, with wine tasting only for that day. We debate to attend Sula or Gauri's funtion, since we are neck to neck with time. In the car:
Dhaval: Ok people fast, vote - sula or Gauri?
Manali: Sula
Anuj: I dont drink anyway, so Gauri
Richa: Gauri
Dhaval: Lets go to sula, what you say Ritu?
Ritu: well, we could go to Sula...
Alok: mujhe jana hai sula!! but let's got to gauri's wedding
Dhaval: oops! 3-all!
Anuj: Let's call up Gauri (the wedding girl) and ask : Gauri, Sula or wedding?
(burst of laughter)
We eventually pass off Sula to attend Gauri's function...

Hell is very badly done

Architectural Design // First Year


"Hell is very badly done" - Maxim Gorky

Alternatives for the above statement...by the first year students.

Cabinet of Curiosities

Graphics & Representation:

We are trying to open up worlds of the self through the construction of cabinet of curiosities - a concept used by the people involved in the knowledge production during the Enlightenment period, to store objects which couldnot be classified then into any branch of knowledge.

In our graphics class, we aim to reconstruct the self through these curious objects we collect and understand why they stayed with us for such long time and the way they become our extensions to represent ideas that we can not express through conventional means of communication. The unspoken and unexpressed aspects of our personalities take form through the objects we collect. Often filling up our cabinets, these curiosities allow us to dig further into our idiosyncrasies and the way we use them to cover up our insecurities, likes, dislikes or emotions.

Lets see where we go with this idea.

Modernity: An incomplete Project

I asked Pendse sir of the references made by many modern architects and critics on why they say that the modern project is incomplete. He answered in some ways.

One, he said that modern movement invented a lot of 'technology' but much of it remains to be explored yet. Secondly, many social theorists say that all possible forms of capitalism have yet not manifested. We are yet to see more social formations based on capitalism in our society.

I further asked him what is the 'post modern' doing then. He explained that people's belief in post modernism has gone down, and instead being replaced by post structuralism. What changes in the post-modern time is the philosophy of technology or the way in which technology is perceived in the post modern age. The emergence of quantum mechanics led or directed the post modern thought. Further the chaos theory challenged rationality.

Sandeep Pendse mentioned that even Marx accepted that rational thought is limited. That rationality has limits. These limits are opened up by theories like chaos theory. To further the project of modernity, he explained, that we still dont know what inventions like biotechnology, rooting from modern thought can achieve...

Socio cultural issues in Academic projects

These days Aniruddha (Mahale) and I keep poking fun at each other on being elitist - We keep blaming each other to be more elite (quite reverse Sarabhai v/s Sarabhai phenomenon). Not going much into the hows, I think we are just reacting to a situation where we end up interacting with extremely high class students and star kids!

However, such situations have compelled us to relook at our past and the kind of projects we did in our past. Chaitanya maintains that the profession of architecture can only cater to the elites. Architecture is a regimental profession, which orders / structures other peoples lives according to what architects think is right for the world. The great masters did that - and we enforce the students to think of the last detail, only following the Mies-an quote: "God is in Detail". We train students to think even of the hairpin that the client would put in order to suit the inhabited space.

Architecture sees the slums as a nuisance, the popular aesthetic as kitsch, the domestic decoration as middle-class and rejects ornament in its current modernist hangover. Infact, these are the most basic design sensibilities from where students develop a liking for design - for the aspirants, design is about decoration, arrangement and creativity. Most students come with a strong humble sensibility of the middle class. Architecture severely insults this sensibility, or at least it does not respect these or channel these as potential design drivers. However, I must caution myself here to be specific of my experiences and my college - Academy of Architecture, Mumbai.

I came to Academy of Architecture with a heavy creative cultural baggage - I learnt to 'create' things from my mother - she taught me how to make things out of waste, of giving domestic waste an aesthetic value, she taught me how to make rakhees, I saw her paint, embroider, knit - all of it that fascinated me. I came to the architecture with this 'creative' interest. The beginning of the course was interesting, but it took a weird cultural twist by the second year when we were introduced to Interior Design. I never understood the subject - I just couldnot comprehend the idea of laying out an interior. Coming from a background where a house was a collection of utilitarian objects, sprinkled with artistic pieces here and there, I wondered what to put in a large living room plan apart from a diwan and a TV case?

I never dined on a dining table - eating was still a family activity - circling in the living room where food was served turn by turn to all. There was no question of understanding the concept of a dining table / dining space. The bed was more importantly a storage object, than a sleeping one - to the extent where height didnot respond to anthropometrics, but to the height of objects to be stored / amount of material to be stored in the bed hollow. Cupboards were not about hangers, but about the safe vault and safety. Study table was always a dream - I never had one. It was only pillows which became the table when kept on my lap... In interior design, we were expected to 'design' for these 'everyday' activities. In my home, objects for these activities happened over a period of time - as and when my father could afford it - so we had a steel cupboard, a wheel table, then some teepoys, diwan later, bed even later... So all of them were incoherent (speaking from a designer aesthetic). Apparently, that is not what ID expected us to do. I struggled and struggled and wondered what I could 'design' in an interior space other than the life i lived.

We had projects like interpretation centre in the same year - a word that I had never heard of. Our faculty, in the guise of explaining the concept of an interpretation centre, ended up telling us the programs that we needed to provide. Later in the course we were expected to design large centres - a naturopathy centre for some people who would come to these places for a few weeks. As outings, we always stayed in dharamshalas (inns). This stretch of imagination from an inn to individual cottages was far too much to grasp then. Further in the course were were asked to design more elitist and polished projects -in the guise of 'large scale projects'.

One of the first questions the faculty asked our class: "So how many of you have been to a five star hotel?" (seems a very humble question, but the medium of writing doesnot allow me to explain the intonation / delivery of speech). The obvious well-to-do people raised hands. A huge bunch of us looked at each other - perplexed. A social class of students for whom, once a month food at a local restaurant was a luxury, were expected to think of being to a five star hotel. The professor continued to share more experiences of five stars while all of us kept drowning ourselves in an imagined bubble of shame. We were expected to visit such places as case studies - buildings which do not allow you in without shoes and shun you by your appearance. Convention centres, hotels, residential towers, townships - all kinds of projects which were then farfetched for a class of people like us to imagine.

I am perhaps trying to draw attention to the completely insensitive ways in which elitism was thrown upon students without understanding the socio cultural backgrounds we came from. I wonder what others thought when they were asked whether or not they had been to a five star hotel. Isn't it too personal and sharp a question that makes you conscious of your own social status? What socio-mental traumas does it create for all such people who are completely shy and may never be able to admit their insecurities due to their backgrounds? And for those who have never been to such places, how does the curriculum ever expect, in 3 months, a design which suits an elitist taste and works absolutely efficiently?

These are sensitive issues. The academia has to deal with them very carefully and study cultural patterns to be able to slowly open up students to various aspects of design, so that they do not hurt the cultural sentiments of students from socially sensitive backgrounds. The academics have to think and rethink of projects they give students to handle. In the fellowship I did with KRVIA after my graduation, I realized how   hegemonic design could be, and how soft, other systems are. We can creatively engage with these softer systems to be able to learn more about life in general instead of superimposing on ourselves a completely foreign order of living.

However, we face quite a reverse problem right now. We have a large set of elitist brats within whom a handful of people who can not afford quite many things have gotten embedded. This elitism reflects in the way they waste all kinds of resources, the general lack of concern for others, the tantrums they throw, the for-granted attitude towards their teachers, the stupid reasons they argue for, the lack of discipline - and I could go on...!

However, when Aniruddha told me how he gave over all his architecture stationery to one of such 'embedded' students, I really felt touched. If only the elitist, instead of wasting resources helped their friends who can not afford luxuries that they tend to waste, it would make such a larger difference...

Of shrinking personal space

Two things that have subconsciously held me back from doing a lot of things that I would have liked to do are issues of space and lack of company. I have only come to realise about these two now - wonder why?

The issue of space clearey appeared to me when I realized how one of my professors invested in physical books. Involuntarily I asked him - where do you store them? But this question was in disguise an answer to my lack of productivity. Why don't I produce - physical models, installations, objects, craft - all things that I once engaged in so deeply, to an extent where this physical engagement with material and the skill to handle it gave me he confidence to pursue architecture. The answer is the limitation of space. If only i had the space to store books, the models, craft objects, installations that i made, would there be a drivr to create. Creativity is always physical - since you create. could one of the reasons for my switch over to a 'person of ideas' be because of the lack of physical space!? The space of ideas and the mind is limitless. It allows you to record, preserve and maintain your thoughts without external interference or objection.

My mother is always worried of storage - of all sorts of things that make up her domestic life, her dwelling. Her insecurity with this limited shrinking physical space has subconsciously taken over me. To avoid disturbances in the physical setting of my home, I have almost stopped te process of real creation. I donot like to discard my creations. I preserve them because they inspire me to make more. Logically this chain would result into accumulation of more and more physical stuff. I donot have any space to store them. Neither does my family understand my need to create an nor do they encourage me to make, since things that I make would occupy space. I shall have to soon find a way to overcome this nonforceful hegemony.

In the recent days I realized that while i went for so many talks, discussions, seminars in the past, those have reduced to barely a few now. Thinking over it, what makes the idea of attending academic events boring in the first place is the lack of company now. Earlier i had a group of friend amongst whom, someone or the other would be willing to join or vice versa. Gradually we started dispersing. After graduation, close friends went on to study abdoad, some got married, some got busy wih their jobs....this issue seemed to resolve itself when I made new friends with whom i almost set a new culture of engagement. Soon, they also moved away - for studies, work or found partners. Prasad shetty keeps pointing out very correctly perhaps - "he needs a partner". Sometimes I like to doubt him, but i know he is probably right. I have not being going out since i do not have any company to go out with, further i donot have people who share my kind of temperament to discuss my ideas wih. This has started having conssquences on my space of ideas too...

With shrinking physical and intellectual space, I feel choked. I must resolve these issues and come to a middle ground solution soon which shall free me of these things that are pulling me back. I must grow, only because I can. And i must find alternatives of growing too.

The Aesthetic of Dirt

Only if we develop an eye to appreciate dirt around us, will we fall in love with our environment. To be able to discuss dirt further, one needs to set up a framework for the definition of dirt. What is dirt? What are the conceptions of dirt? How is dirt constructed? What is our cause for repulsion towards dirt? How is it possible for other living beings to be with, live in or even consume something that we may consider as dirt?

One could argue through Luis Bunuel's free form surrealist films The Phantom of Liberty (scene) investigations in such areas of perception. His surreal work on the dining table where people sit on commodes and laugh about what they consume brings a darker side of the way in which our system is codified. Speaking of 'Sexuality and Deject', Bataille says:

"...The place for filth is in the dark, where looks cannot reach it. Secrecy is the condition for sexual activity, just as it is the condition for the performance of the natural functions.

Darkness thus surrounds two worlds that are distinct but always associated. The same horror banishes the sexual function and excretion to the same darkness. The association is given in nature, which brings together and even in part mingles the organs. Of course we cannot determine the essential component of the aversion provoking the nausea we feel for both kinds of "filth." We cannot even know if excrement smells bad because of our disgust for it, or if its bad smell is what causes that disgust..."

However, beginning to describe dirt in order to be able to only appreciate my environment (since one man cannot clean the entire surround, neither can one convince all to behave civil and neither can one impart values or awareness towards health or hygeine), one may look at how is it formed and what are the natural aesthetic patterns it geneates. To follow a conventional framework, we could begin to analyse dirt through form, colour and material. After all, most works of art are primarily understood through these parameters.

Then, one must begin to understand culturally the nature of dirt a society produces. Because, the character of dirt that each society produces is a result of an engagement with the kind of material available to tem for all kinds of consumption - social, physical, technological, etc. Then again, the scale at which we discuss the notion of dirt is important. Are we talking of domestic dirt, commercial dirt, dirt at a locality or urban level, technological or machinic dirt - because 'dirt' takes on different meanings , infact different nomenclature at different scales. For example, organic dirt may be referred to as garbage, commercial dirt as waste, machinic dirt as junk, and so on. But then, one must find what lies at the heart of dirt - what common theme binds the definition of dirt? I think one can debate it from two sides - the personal and the public. But if one considers 'public' as the summation of the 'person' then there has to be some idea which ties or pins down the common understanding of dirt. There has to be something inherently repulsive about dirt for all societies to reject dirt. But these are really large questions and would only lead to theorising dirt.

In the meanwhile we must define a field of discussion. The idea of dirt in public realm is the area of concern. The fact that india is represented as a 'dirty' country is the reason for this investigation. But there is no need to look at a large geography like India since te conception of this land itself is problematic and one hasn't even explored the whole of this country to generalize ideas. Let us talk of our city. Something that is very close to us. More specifically, let us talk of the route which we take from homes to our workplaces. Can we consider dirt as a part of the aesthetic we encounter everyday?

(thought under construction)