Theories & Manifestoes

I am thinking things in a manner quite dense, in a way that can not be written in hurried posts. Most of the times, I refrain from posting things unless I have found an entry point into a discussion. You form opinions on things all the time, but hold them back for the lack of a "proof" or an instance strong enough to validate your theoretical analysis of it. Views on the society, family, individuals, education, behaviours, disciplines, and so on build up all the time in the head. A critical mind takes enough time to probe these opinions carefully such that they can be defended to the challenges that can be directly or distantly anticipated. Much time then goes into developing an argument to fend the allegations rather than working up towards building your own theory.

Manifestoes, unlike theories, have the liberty to be ruthless. They donot have the burden of being politically correct. They themselves chart a new politics. Manifestoes are often clear stances that people take on things, and are irreverent towards balancing out things. It is not the intent of manifestoes to keep everyone happy. Theories on the other hand, must work in multiple, or ambitiously, every context. Theories and manifestoes both give rise to each other. Nevertheless, the real world keeps theories within bounds, in a sort of confinement - making it realize its own limits. Manifestoes are often products of gut feeling and brought out with an air of assertion, where it assumes indifference to other critical discourses that may try to poke holes in their intent. 

From my above understanding, I am not a person who perhaps seems to attempt a manifesto. I am not necessarily assertive, or affirmative enough to force down a singular way of doing things. Being a skeptic, a person who not only doubts everyone, but even the self all the time, I can hardly adopt the mode of proposing ideas in the manner of manifestoes. I am a theorist - in disposition as well as training. I have many theoretical ideas waiting to find their archives -- as my advisor at Yale would often say. "Some people come to the program [MED] with an identified archive which they try to theorise, while others come with theoretical ideas and find material to substantiate them, eventually making their own archives." I clearly fell in the category of the latter. 

It is thus that I began to maintain a 'Book of Ideas'. My book of ideas contains formulations of the world that may be ill-informed. There are times when I have felt wise about holding release of a thought until the time many other dimensions of a situation / person / object /activity is revealed to me in an unexpected manner. There are other times when I have cringed for not being affirmative enough to present my ideas strongly for the insecurity of the lack of information. What seems to shape my skepticism is this perceived sense of ill-information. In this line of thought, it may not be wise to write anything at all until you have almost lived your entire life. Is there any way of understanding life, and aspects of life that you want to decipher while you are still living? Any theory thus, is always in evolution, for it is written as "in process". 

What shall be then, a skeptic's diary? What form does skepticism take in language? A skeptic poses questions, hardly answers. At once, it seems utterly paradoxical for a skeptic to present his/her ideas - because on the one hand they are are quite unsure, and thus also incomplete. Incomplete and unsure ideas are always discarded by others. In modern culture, incompleteness does not hold much value. I think that manifestoes are forms of incomplete theories. Unsure incomplete theories which are hardened with a tact of indifference and defensive affirmation. Can manifestoes then be looked at with a skeptic eye? Or should a skeptic be writing manifestoes in order to escape being crumbled under criticism?

A blog is a soft space for such discussion to be voiced. However, many a times on reading my earlier posts, I have found some writings to be extremely potent. Yet, they never gain the status of seriousness because after all, they are on a blog - moreso a personal blog that is perhaps merely impressionistic? Such considerations bring us to question the agency of a personal blog. In recent times, we have seen enough examples of instrumental action channeled through online media portals. It may be worthwhile to understand how seriously do people take writings on blogs? In the course of my writing, I realised the title and content of this blog raises these questions quite succinctly. 'Dagagiri' (you may read about its etymology through the link on the sidebar) almost announces its content as a gentle manifesto. 'A gentle manifesto' sounds comforting, bringing in measured assertion with a pinch of self-skepticism.

In this spirit, I shall find time to note down some thoughts over coming time...perhaps...if they remain in my head long enough.

The Admission Game

We are just finishing up the admission process at SEA. Like the last year, SEA chose the students for its "Institute Level Seats", popularly understood in the other schools as "management seats" through an internal interview process. There were about 150 applicants for the mere 8 seats (out of a total of 40). Apart from people's recommendation to its educational quality, the applications to SEA also pooled in for these seats because they were "free" - that they were not "sold" through accepting donations (that generally amount in six to seven digits in most other schools). While many filled in the "Institute Level Form" to avoid missing out the opportunity of being in an educational environment like SEA at any cost, even when they could avail the seat through the centralised MASA procedure; many others applied for financial reasons. SEA recognises several other intents which direct people to fill in its Institute level forms - low grades, geographical transfers, missed out deadlines for forms, delayed results, and so on - basically those which dodge the official processes of availing an admission into colleges. The interview process is a unique way in which an attempt is made for evaluating a candidate in a well rounded, multi-dimensional perspective.

The SEA Institute Level Seats, meanwhile, are offered only to students on the basis of merit. According to me, "merit" is not understood at SEA as merely an aggregate of different scores achieved in the 12th or NATA examination. It is a broader idea that includes personal characteristics like  self-awareness, consciousness, cultural sensitivity, passion, determination, perseverance and rigour that may inform the candidate's future course of education in the field of architecture. The above values, it may be debated, are informed by the socio-economic status of a candidate. Following such line of thought, SEA would have end up in creating its own "reservations" criteria in allotting seats to candidates. Whether SEA must take such a step, or not, is a larger question that needs rigorous internal debate. The least I can say is that SEA panel is aware of these questions, and that it will learn and improvise with every round of interviews. At the same time, it is working on an alternate strategy of helping students with need-based scholarships.

This year however, SEA unknowingly ended up screening students who belonged to more-or-less a similar economic background - the middle and the upper middle class section. These students were chosen based on their performance on the drawing test and personal interview, certainly not on their economic status. On a parallel contemplation, we all often wonder how to balance the aspect of finances with the education that is being offered. As explained before, there are two aspects to the Institute Level seats at SEA: one is that they are competitive in a broadened sense of "merit", and other, is that they are free. Which one should be given more emphasis in the selection process? The selection process through the last two years have shown that what we consider as "merit" is closely linked to the socio economic status of the candidate. Effectively, it means that exposure, environment and prior education - all that are linked to one's financial status, and shape the individual. In other words, have we failed to recognize the very linkage between the social and economic forces that have seemed to dominate our very selection? On the other hand, if we believe that a school like ours can positively make a change to a student who otherwise does not have sufficient access, who has remained behind due to lack of adequate guidance, who has suffered because of his economic background (which may have driven his choice of local school, etc.), who has not got a chance to be in an environment where he/she could learn effective communication and confidence, etc; how are we to look forward? To be sure, we have certainly had such candidates, promising within their own levels of exposure and economic boundaries. However, they naturally were left far behind in the way our selection criteria was devised.

While these economically weaker could have in no way afforded to a pay donation perhaps to any school (some of whom may also have purchased the admission form priced at Rs. 2000/- with some hesitation, but with the hope of getting fair admission); some of the others who actually got selected would have wilfully paid generous donations to other schools, if need be, and in case they were not accepted at SEA. The SEA interview system, in this perspective, seems to have lost out on two fronts: The first is that of accepting a challenge to train an average, but possibly interested student empowering him/her to chart his own successful career, in that sense making a difference to a genuinely needy person - through its "free-of-donation" seat; the second of losing out on the much-needed "donation" that a reasonably well-to-do, candidate would have otherwise wilfully paid towards building the infrastructure of a fledgling school.

SEA doesnot accept donations because it doesnot wish to "sell" its seats or be pressured by any external parties in the process of delivering education. However, these are the challenges that an Institution like SEA, (read an institution whose foundations are laid on principles of honest and fair education, ethical practices), faces. I must emphasize, after learning from the experiences our staff of handling "admission procedures", that like many other schools today, SEA received multiple recommendations, calls, letters and monetary offers for admitting students unofficially. Many people are quite openly and shamelessly willing to pay huge amounts to "buy" a seat at SEA. These people had to be tactfully evaded by our staff team. What surprises us though, is the fact that how people have naturally taken upon themselves to pay lofty donations, instead of curbing this very attitude that has wrongfully seeped into institutional processes, through a common protest.

Perhaps the middle-class individual, from some generations now, has begun to prepare for this dubious process of admission right from the beginning of his career. (On the other hand, there is a blind competition amongst students to score better and better marks to evade such "bribes". Such attitudes often result into youngsters who are "blind" to the multidimensionality of the world, buried into books and narrow minded middle-class moralities). But as mentioned before, the preparation that the middle-class makes much in advance, are huge investments for years in anticipation of feeding a corrupt system - huge monies are seemingly kept aside for all such purposes! Even more dangerous is a situation where prospective students themselves volunteer to pay donations (evident in the manner in which they discuss affairs at admission centers), and further coax their own parents to submit sums of money for procuring seats in educational institutes. Such behaviour seems blasphemous in a time when the country is just out of a huge protest against corruption, when the political mood seemingly aims to overturn corruption, and when, even if in another state, Kejriwal rules by his "honest" principles.

However, what makes all of us cringe, is that the same middle-class individual who has probably saved up that much money on a seat which he/she would have bought through lofty donation wouldn't volunteer to pay even 1/3rd of that amount as a philanthropic gesture to support activities of an institution like SEA! Philanthropy for the middle-class individual is probably an attribute of the "rich". Rightfully so. Philanthropy is not, after all, a middle-class idea. Being a middle-class myself, and thinking through this, I wouldn't be able to "donate" money to an institution without any purpose, or especially once my job is done, that too by a "fair" way! In such a situation, somehow, the value for that very money becomes critical and the individual gets over-rational. How can a morality that is built on the ideas of savings and bargaining ever think up of "donation" as a philanthropic act? That is absurd! But where does this rationality disappear in the first case, where the seat in an educational institute is literally traded, where the account of the money, often exchanged in cash, is inconsequential to the giver and moreover is unfair!? Of course, in the latter case the act is submissive, where clear power politics is at play - the needy parents being at the other end...

It is evident that SEA is ambitious, to an extent that it attempts to offer fair compensation to individuals, best teachers, adequate space, exciting programs, cultural events - all of it, even if it pinches their own pockets. That, with the ambition of building an infrastructure (within its limits) that stand at par with the standards of the best schools of architecture we have around us...

In this outpour, I tried to explore the complicated and dilemmatic process and product of dealing with fair education practices. The matter at hand has many more dimensions. It is evident that choosing an alternative pathway brings you at new crossroads, that ultimately sets new trends and new ways of thinking and working.

---

The views expressed in the above post are purely personal and do not in any way represent those of SEA or partner organizations.

Just Without Reason

यूं ही बेमतलब 

---------------

बेमतलब की बक बक बक में,

खुद ही को उलझाये रखना,

बिना बात की हर हरकत से,

खुद ही को बहलाये रखना,

घंटों से यूं भटके मन को,

फिर फिर कर भटकाते रहना,

दिन भर खटते रहते तन को, 

कर कर कर करवाते रहना,

झूठ मूठ की साहसा देकर,

आगे आगे आते रहना,

आदत सी हो गयी है जैसे, 
खुद को यूं झुठलाते रहना!

The Lust for Internet

There is a lot in the head that is not coming out. Perhaps that has been articulated in the head, but has not made its way to the blog. Not made to the eyes of so many people ready, and waiting to judge, help, ask, rip, challenge, debate and suggest - none for which I am either prepared or willing. Because for some reason, i believe i will not be able to express, or reveal. Because for some reason, I am not prepared to debate, justify, rationalize...

I often end up thinking that (my) thoughts are so volatile. Sometimes, in my head, they are explosive and soothing at the same time. Explosive because they may appear to be morally outrageous if expressed, and soothing because they have taken some form through a known language within the head, that gives a sense of peace to the restless mind. They are almost like letters ready to be despatched, but stationed in the head. What happens when letters already written to someone lie waiting long, and perhaps never get a chance to travel to whom they are addressed to? What, in this sense, happens to letters in the head that are not despatched out for long? 

Tremendous amount of energy is required to translate the raw explosive thoughts that occur / get formulated in the mind, into the language of diplomacy so that that they hurt no one, they are well taken and create the right impact in the reality of the world. Such energy is something that I don't want to yet put in. The real world almost always demands to sugar coat your thoughts. You can not express criticism freely, for it would mean you have to be ready to accept it freely too. The fear of hurting forces me to be silent on most occassions. 

The amount of stalking by people on the internet unimaginable. Gone are the days when one could be a stranger on / to the internet. The internet, once allowed me to talk to myself. The internet was a place to escape, wander and get lost into. Today it has become a destination! It has strangely become a place where both - becoming anonymous and becoming popular plays out at the same time, creating a situation of crisis. Being pulled by such opposing thoughts, any idea of identity is splintered, scattered. In such a situation, what does one post on this blog?

I am becoming increasingly insecure of consequences of being stalked. It is irritating when people who have not known you for long enough try to figure you out and pass on an opinion. When people don't know you, they interpret your actions and words very differently, sometimes unnecessarily complicating it. The attention that your words and actions attract on the internet is again, encouraging and alarming. Encouraging because you are prompted to put more out there, because it brings you popularity, but alarming because you make yourself more available to be misinterpreted.

What do people, who otherwise do not have the outreach, but the belief that they are competent, do? The internet shall always remain then a brothel of sorts, where lust is mistaken for love. It is a lust for asserting presence through and in the immaterial world. We, who exist on the internet, strive for making our presence prominent in the virtual. Our own virtual constructs soon shall encompass us by becoming bigger than our very reality. These make us comparable to the powerful, to the frequently demanded, and fill in a gap that we have ourselves imagined within us. Indeed, it has to be the imagined that has to fill up the virtual. 

I realize I am getting theoretical to an extent that only I understand my words and statements. It would be good, perhaps to quickly list the things I wanted to write about, did last week and so on.

--

I attended two talks last week, one by Sanjay Mohe at KRVIA and the other by Henry Jenkins at the Godrej Culture Lab in Vikroli. Both talks were great. I didnot take notes. I am sure these will be available on their respective websites. I might talk about them sometime, when I have researched more, and feel appropriate to cite them. Meanwhile, I must close this post. I don't know if this writing is making sense at all!

Dilemmas of Education

I began writing about the dilemma this picture raises, but it is too precise to deal with!
What has happened of our education system and how should it be?

Imagined Locales: Book Opening

On Friday, I attended the opening of "Imagined Locales" - a book authored by Shubhalakshmi Shukla on Contemporary Indian Art. The event took place at Kitab Mahal, Studio X and was attended by a small audience, mostly including artists and friends, some students and colleagues (like me). Gieve Patel and Bharati Kapadia were in conversation with Shubhalakshmi on her book.

I was practically seeing Shubha, with whom I would teach the Art Studio at Academy of Architecture (of whom I have also been a student), after almost three years. I had kept in touch with her while away for my masters, and after I was back. However, Friday was only when I actually finally met her back. Shubha met me like time did not exist, and that we had just seen yesterday. In her calm disposition, she made our meeting feel almost as if we had never been apart. There was no drama of "revisiting", there was no over-expectation, no hugging, no asking of the past, no queries of the present. She made everything feel at rest, equilibrium - almost questioning - "wasn't this how things were supposed to be/happen?" This unspoken mood of the environment was reassuring. She hadn't changed, perhaps also demanding the same of me? I greeted Shubha like I always did - with composure and a smile. And I moved.

And I guess this sense of greeting flowed off the presentation itself. When we used to teach together, Shubha had once mentioned to me, "I am not a Marxist." I did not understand what exactly she meant then. (Regular readers of this blog will remember a post I wrote on "Who is a Marxist?" That post was triggered after Shubha's submission). Friday's talk made clear the statement Shubha declared to me long ago. The talk was centered around the idea of "imagination", and quite directly, as the title of the book suggests, referenced from Benedict Anderson's 'Imagined Communities'. The book documents the work of Indian contemporary artists in the form of conversations and essays collected through interviews and reflections over the last four years. Shubha mentioned that the book was made possible through the encouragement of the curator of Guild Art Gallery in Mumbai (the name of whom I am forgetting now).

Gieve Patel quite rightly said that Shubha had been able to empathise with a lot of artists in her conversation and its translation into text. All those involved in the process of interviewing and conversations will understand how easy it is to impress upon our own views and questions onto the other while talking. Such intrusions disrupt the thought-flow of the interviewees, often digressing their original thoughts. Further, it is easy to sway into different directions, not realising that our words have coloured someone else's thought and the conversation may no longer be as neutral. Shubha, in her calmness would certainly allow enough space for the interviewee to express fully, without intervening. Moreso, to understand, or to receive the meaning of the speech in the way it is delivered is important, because textual translation can have quite a flattening tendency. I am sure Gieve was hinting to all these aspects when talking of "empathy". Further the discussion also touched upon the ideas of transcendence, the act of drawing as therapy and so on.

Surely, the above ideas may not be completely accepted or even assumed to be worthy of discussion by hard core Marxists, to whom (now that I have a clearer idea), experiences have to be rooted in the material world (and not imagination, which can not be proved). I am surrounded mostly by Marxists, who often disprove many thoughts that can not be supported by hard facts. I thus fail to have discussions with people who do not rely on personal experience as their key teacher. I was thus able to join many loose dots through the discussion, and further it helped me articulate my position / world view further.

I am now looking forward to read the book and find myself further. For those interested, I feel "Imagined Locales" is an important book to understand the contemporary art practice in India, perhaps primarily in a non Marxist perspective. I have not read it yet, but I believe given the author and the discussion I witnessed, the book frames an interesting picture, that shall help one in internal reflection and contemplation.

The Aesthetics of Absurdity

In a recent review at SEA, some students intended to give a solution for the space that bus stops on the foot paths often create along the streets of Mumbai. They wanted to, for instance, look at how different activities happening around this shelter could be better accommodated by relooking at it. However, in their process of quick response, their attention turned to redesigning the buses instead of the bus stop! This happened because they had decided to lift up the bus stop to free up the ground space. Quite obviously, the bystanders at the bus stop now had to climb up to go to the bus stop. They would now board the bus from an upper level, for which the buses were altered. However, this didnot eliminate the lower entry into the bus. The students retained the lower entrance for physically challenged and old people.

The second part of the presentation was focused thus, on the redesign of the bus! They had quite elaborate drawings of the bus, with quite funnily miniscule wheels! They explained their project with quite some confidence and enthusiasm. The exercise demanded that they think out of the box, but they just went berserk, in a direction where things became more uncomprehensible and the gaps between the problems and offered solution increased exponentially.

While a person like me would have trashed this idea, Prasad had an interesting take. He provoked the group to imagine, what would be the next logical absurd step they would take in their process! I was quite intrigued, but at the same time, waiting to hear if students could take it further. I am not sure if students understood either the critique or the provocation. Perhaps they understood both! But I am not sure if they were able to understand, at all, that they were designing absurdity. And further, I am not sure, if Prasad meant to hint that there is an aesthetic in absurdity; or whether absurdity is inherently disturbing.

However, thinking about the aesthetic of absurdity would make us agree that there probably must be some undeciphered order to it that gives us pleasure. The immediate example, and the one quite apparent, is the expression of the golden ratio. The fibonacci series which results in the golden spiral is one of the most aesthetic curls that we can probably draw, while the fact remains that it is derived due to the plotting of some fractions which donot ever resolve themselves. The golden rectangle or spiral, one of the most revered aesthetic figures, is thus in essence an expression of irrationality.

Numerous other propositions like the Brownian motion, the Chaos theory, the pigeon's dilemma and so on may seem quite absurd, but have been deducted as quite aesthetic. I wonder if scientifization of these irrationalities makes such phenomena aesthetic? Perhaps, the act of fiddling with these undefinable entities is aesthetic. But I am forced to think by mentioning quickly the above examples, that absurdity has a distinct aesthetic that can be perhaps explained in the sublime. But if absurdity can be explained, and even studied, does it at all remain so any longer? Does it qualify to be irrational? These are questions that opened up for me quite late after the students' presentation explained above.

I am wondering now, what Prasad's proposition actually meant? Further, what is the value of absurdity? How do we, if at all, benefit from it? Should absurdities be meant for benefits or should they assume wart-like characters? I think I mean 'pleasure' by benefits, pleasure in the thought, experience and engagement. Further, what place does absurdity have in academia? Does it have a method of deployment (this proposition is almost paradoxical)? If absurdity has a method, does it remain absurd (irrational) any longer? These are questions I have now come to think of loudly.

And what feedback with this background would one offer this group at hand? To be aware of absurdity and handle it with maturity is one thing. To be innocent with it is another. But meanwhile, this group was almost frivilous, pseudo-serious and presumed that they had been quite innovative. I do not blame them, but their age! But architecture school often makes students produce absurd artifacts which only become more meaningful in hindsight, when one has gained considerable maturity. Then, the way in which they are presented must change, and they way in which they come to inscribe people's lives are quite different. 

Visit to Navrachana University, Baroda

Over the last weekend, Ravi Punde took us to visit the Navrachana University in Baroda in oder to look and learn from the Year-end Student Exhibition hosted by the school. For the first time, I had been taken to a trip with a purpose of learning from peers, and I must admit that it was quite refreshing to step out of one's own confined bubble and gain a fresh perspective at oneself through the works of another school.

The Navrachana University, like SEA, is a young architecture college. It was established in 2009, and the architecture wing is headed by Ar. Gurudev Singh - an individual dedicated to educate young minds. Gurudev is on the academic council of SEA, and a close friend of Ravi Punde. The visit thus became more productive, for beyond merely seeing the exhibition, the two institutions also exchanged notes on their pedagogies. 

Instead of turning to the exhibition, we found the workshop more inviting. It was full of machines, and each corner filled with wood. Part assemblies of models lay all around, and Gurudev was happy to begin from there itself - explaining to us how each machine worked, and what it could do! His energy was contagious, and immediately gripped all of us. Gurudev believes in learning by making, and in the first two years, the students spend considerable time in the workshop devising structures and making simple contraptions.

We were walked through the exhibition by Gurudev Singh himself, along with some of his colleagues. It was so inspiring to look at his enthusiasm and dedication, more than any thing else, honesty and commitment towards educating his students. We walked across numerous models made by the students using not only the wood workshop that was on their floor, but also the metal, welding and other tools like laser cutter, etc from the engineering department.

The school of architecture in Navrachana exists on a single, but large floor plate. The top floor is what the design students occupy. It consists of a full fleged wood workshop, about 5 studio-classrooms, administration and large lobby areas which double up as exhibition spaces. The floor also has a computer room and several other facilities like meeting rooms, restrooms etc. There is ample natural light on the floor.  However, the school is soon to shift in a new building that is being built right opposite to the present one.

In the present case, when we reached, one part of the lobby hosted the exhibition, while the space right outside the lift area was taken up by a gang of students who had finally found some time after their year long slog to jam some songs. Guitars and hums filled up the background of our journey through the exhibition.

We were explained each and every work by the faculties in detail. It didn't bore me at all - infact, I was quite elated to listen to them speak so beautifully. They certainly added a mature dimension to the student projects they described, but I believe their oratory intervention was essential to theoretically mobilize the otherwise skill-heavy work. Much of their work took me back to my own school days from Academy of Architecture, where extremely crafted drawings were produced in good number, often craving for a better assisting narrative. This visit could have possibly turned out to be dry if the faculties had not taken over. However, I also believe that many of the students may have been on vacation and unavailable to assist a walk through to audiences.

Perhaps it was pre-decided that Ravi Punde would give a presentation to the students there, as much as talking about how SEA operates. This had to supercede the lovely musical time students were having after completing the rut of their classes for the year. I found it particularly annoying, inspite of being on the other side, for pulling the students off their music zone into a yet another building lecture! In fact, Ravi eventually also got Prasad and Rupali to present the work they displayed at the 56th Venice Art Biennale. While they promised to keep their respective presentations short, in apology of disturbing the students' music session, the discussion seemingly went on for far too long. I was bored, partly because of the heat, but moreso because I was hardly interested in listening any more to any one.

However, the presentations revealed to me much interesting work by Design Cell, headed by Ravi Punde. I requested Ravi to share with me his presentation so that I could study and review it. On the other hand, Prasad and Rupali's was the first public presentation of the Venice Biennale work. They have not discussed their work openly with any one before. The simplicity with which Prasad oriented the students with their work "Transactional Objects" was incredible. I had to pull out my notebook in order to make notes! 

Later, we sat with the core faculty of Navrachana University to discuss ideas to keep exchanging notes regularly and do more work in collaboration. We discussed dilemmas with regard to grading, discipline and interests of students. We also discussed the merits and possibilities of our pedagogical approaches and how they could be improved upon. I just felt that the SEA team was a bit too optimistic and over-confident with our methods and results. We often tend to put others behind in order to convince ourselves of our superiority. However, these are merely myths, and only time shall prove the success of our doings.

Santhali Scrolls

Following are some beautiful scrolls drawn by the Santhali tribes in North East India. These were collected by artist Archana Hande with whom I was taking the Art Studio for the students at SEA last to last week. Archana had brought these to share with students the ways in which narratives can be depicted through the form of screens.

Many of these scrolls depict a single story. Archana briefly explained in one of her sessions how these scrolls were produced - they way they passed from hand to hand, bringing together the people of the community in dialogue with each other. Once I begin to transcribe her lecture, I shall put in up more details. In the meantime, notice the beautiful drawings that come through off abundance of imagination and seemingly basic skills.

Most of the images you see below are from a scroll that imagines the different forms of punishment a soul goes through after death in hell. Note that these images are merely some of the many that the scroll depicted.

Projective Histories by Sameep Padora \ SEA