Day before yesterday, I visited Ratan j Batliboi's office. Neha and Akhil almost directly took me to his library first. It was a spacious room with about 3000 books on subjects primarily pertaining to architecture, art and probably management. Behind it was a collapsable huge material library. I was more fascinated with the collapsable racks than the library of materials. However, the main book library had no window, and hence i felt the library was a bit dull.
I browsed through most titles in the library. I knew many books - most of them on architects and their works. Quite big ones, hard bound, with lots of pictures. There were hardly any books that probably interested me...perhaps I had seen much of it! The master painters, the urban design ones, the architects....and of course the data manuals. What I then realised what that all architects' offices are laden with books which contain a lot of pictures, photos and visual material. Architects crave for visual references.
Architects constantly produce images. Most architectural practices produce images by churning the earlier ones. The source for their images is other images. They collect this image database from referring to hundreds of other architectural practices, images and works. However, how can practices produce newer image banks which do not really have any referentials?
Literature, poetry, text, music - all can be converted to images. What methods can we choose to do such translations? Why don't architects fill up their libraries with all such kinds of books - on philosophy, social sciences, music, audio etc. That architecture offices and practices are loaded with such visual material proves the profession to be too image heavy. For that matter, an institute like Academy of Architecture is filled with such image heavy visual material. What if architectural libraries dedicated more space to non-visual works? Can a same non visual work produce different images and different times using various methods? This would be an interesting aspect to investigate.
Buildings are the most visible cultural objects and they can not embody only visual aspects of a culture. It would be interesting if buildings embodied rituals, practices and phenomenological characteristics of cultures. Then, the debate would not be about images, but about cultures, about people, about lives...
An 80 - year old Churchgate station need not then drape itself up in railway track patterns. That's absolutely banal. Dont the people who use it everyday have any claim over it? Is it not them, who really make the station space? No, I am not suggesting that people suggest ideas for it! Infact, what if its skin engaged people in newer ways...I don't know how it could be done...but I am sure it could do much more than cladding itself in good looking sheets to make itself sculptural...
However, the point is, it ended up being too visual as an urban response. Most urban responses in architecture end up being visual. That's the libraries they refer to. Their knowledge is a derivative of chewed up ideas of other practices which are situated abroad. These ideas are chewed out into images. These images are very unidimensional - they are real and allow only one interpretation. Drawings like those of Archigram do not commit to an absolute form and hence allow multiple readings. On the other hand, music generates moods, texts have layers of meanings. Architects seldom engage with such forms of works. Therefore art practices are interesting - because artists find their own ways of engaging with an idea and generate new images. They don't reproduce images by seeing other images.
Two important points therefore to conclude:
1. What must libraries for architects consist of?
2. How do you generate images from non visual material?
Other corollaries:
Why are we not able to generate images without reference? why do we hesitate?
I think it shall take significant time and effort to study the above...
I browsed through most titles in the library. I knew many books - most of them on architects and their works. Quite big ones, hard bound, with lots of pictures. There were hardly any books that probably interested me...perhaps I had seen much of it! The master painters, the urban design ones, the architects....and of course the data manuals. What I then realised what that all architects' offices are laden with books which contain a lot of pictures, photos and visual material. Architects crave for visual references.
Architects constantly produce images. Most architectural practices produce images by churning the earlier ones. The source for their images is other images. They collect this image database from referring to hundreds of other architectural practices, images and works. However, how can practices produce newer image banks which do not really have any referentials?
Literature, poetry, text, music - all can be converted to images. What methods can we choose to do such translations? Why don't architects fill up their libraries with all such kinds of books - on philosophy, social sciences, music, audio etc. That architecture offices and practices are loaded with such visual material proves the profession to be too image heavy. For that matter, an institute like Academy of Architecture is filled with such image heavy visual material. What if architectural libraries dedicated more space to non-visual works? Can a same non visual work produce different images and different times using various methods? This would be an interesting aspect to investigate.
Buildings are the most visible cultural objects and they can not embody only visual aspects of a culture. It would be interesting if buildings embodied rituals, practices and phenomenological characteristics of cultures. Then, the debate would not be about images, but about cultures, about people, about lives...
An 80 - year old Churchgate station need not then drape itself up in railway track patterns. That's absolutely banal. Dont the people who use it everyday have any claim over it? Is it not them, who really make the station space? No, I am not suggesting that people suggest ideas for it! Infact, what if its skin engaged people in newer ways...I don't know how it could be done...but I am sure it could do much more than cladding itself in good looking sheets to make itself sculptural...
However, the point is, it ended up being too visual as an urban response. Most urban responses in architecture end up being visual. That's the libraries they refer to. Their knowledge is a derivative of chewed up ideas of other practices which are situated abroad. These ideas are chewed out into images. These images are very unidimensional - they are real and allow only one interpretation. Drawings like those of Archigram do not commit to an absolute form and hence allow multiple readings. On the other hand, music generates moods, texts have layers of meanings. Architects seldom engage with such forms of works. Therefore art practices are interesting - because artists find their own ways of engaging with an idea and generate new images. They don't reproduce images by seeing other images.
Two important points therefore to conclude:
1. What must libraries for architects consist of?
2. How do you generate images from non visual material?
Other corollaries:
Why are we not able to generate images without reference? why do we hesitate?
How does this system work?