I have been thinking on writing about my teaching at KRV and AOA since some time now. The comparison is unavoidable, but I will try and resist that temptation. I primarily want to concentrate on the methodologies and my difficulties and interests with students versus my failures and explanations for those failures given by others on discussion. There is also an inevitable comparison of the students with my own self as a student.
Starting with academy of architecture, we tried to do a workshop this time, without dushyant this time. Unfortunately none of us had the professionalism or time to dedicate to or execute the workshop. We read “The Little Prince” and expected the students to come up with installations of ideas that fascinated them from the book.
The Council has now allowed students from all backgrounds (commerce, arts and science) to pursue an architecture course. I do question the relevance of this step. However, the kind of students we are getting today are so stereotypical, that it seems that the future of the course is going to be reduced to a purely instructional type. The intake of students has been increased to double. However, let’s not get into all that, the problem I face is with students not willing to question their own selves. At least we did not have any one to push us to questioning, but here, students are very formulaic – draw a line, cut the paper, size of font, format like this : all needs to be told. I remember that we adopted such things just from exhibitions of our seniors’ work. Where there are some students over-prepared on a presentation day, where they prepare even their speech (like how you do in Oscars!) there are others who don’t feel the need to prepare.
Ideas are thrown at them and I don’t understand that if they are in a creative course, can’t they understand what to pick for themselves. Even if they can’t, they can at least follow what is being said (be instructional). I do not like students who are insincere. Students in academy are skillful, but their mental activity is less, or very low. To reflect on the faculty team, we are far too many heads than hands. We need a single head, who co ordinates the programme and supporting staff, who are in resonance.
This is the stronghold of KRV. Rupali is the head – thinking and coordination. We support her in her decisions. The final call is hers. She is also extremely capable – theoretically. On the other hand, the bunch of faculty (us) under her are all of same age group and connect very well. However, the first programme was extremely abstract. We had asked students to bring their heirloom (in the form of stories, objects, ideas, memories, etc.) which they lose in the course of time. The project was the reconstruction of the heirloom through their attributes.
Now, the students’ outlook was similar. However, since the project was a lot more personal, many of them spoke naturally. The subject was “I” and “my” association. Perhaps that helped. Further, the theoretical discussions of the students with their faculties helped in breaking the norms. What was difficult was the construction of the heirloom in to a physical object through narratives. Everyone in the end was somehow was fed with an idea. There were some original too. However, later on they were well received by the jury. But my problem was that many students did not understand what they had done. I don’t consider this as healthy.
At academy, we were dealing with the idea of a Repository for “The little Prince”. Now little prince is a lovely book. It asks large questions in simple ways. But for the students, it was just a story book. The students in academy were almost convinced that readings have no relevance to forms. They already had a notion that architecture means designing fancy buildings. As a teacher, we can’t even say no to this fact. But it is extremely difficult to explain students that buildings can be read. That they have meanings which can be constructed. These meanings also help in defining the form. How do you convey this? I do understand that it does not happen in just a single project. It takes time – perhaps the entire course to understand that architecture is more than a building. But I am worried for academites because the faculty in the further years does not think this way.
On the other hand, I thought that perhaps students are not old enough in their experience of life to understand the complexities of little prince. But that was the easiest we could choose. How does one otherwise inculcate the habit of familiarizing students the relationship between culture, architecture and social studies? It is necessary to do it in first year. My worry at academy is that no one else will do that in the later years. Their idea of cultural space is just an art gallery, an artist’s village and a museum of modern art – and they would not even look at who are the most prominent, or contemporary artists in the country.
At KRV, the faculty is already interdisciplinary. Hence they are exposed to different media directly from the first year. However, their degree of articulating physical form, I felt was very low. Everyone manage to find their niche as an practitioner at KRV. Be it research, film, interior, architecture or storytelling. The paradox is that Academy actually has all such different departments, but there is nothing happening between them. Adarkar wants to convert Academy into a digital environment (without any context). He feels that we can make smarter buildings in the coming 50 years if we are equipped with digital technologies. For a matter of fact, there are not even attempts to create a website for Academy as a step towards this mission. I appreciate Adarkar’s vision, but I can’t reason out for myself, that being a social activist, how he can overlook more important issues surrounding the city.
There is too much theory into KRV. Sometimes, it feels unnecessary. But it manages to produce some interesting concepts. KRV is a closed circuit, while Academy is an open one. Anyone with a strong thought can almost rule academy right now. It is headless. The people have ancient thoughts, while KRV is so fresh. Experience is not helping somehow. It needs fresh talent.
Within this pool of thought, there are things that i will discuss in my subsequent mails, with specific examples.
Starting with academy of architecture, we tried to do a workshop this time, without dushyant this time. Unfortunately none of us had the professionalism or time to dedicate to or execute the workshop. We read “The Little Prince” and expected the students to come up with installations of ideas that fascinated them from the book.
The Council has now allowed students from all backgrounds (commerce, arts and science) to pursue an architecture course. I do question the relevance of this step. However, the kind of students we are getting today are so stereotypical, that it seems that the future of the course is going to be reduced to a purely instructional type. The intake of students has been increased to double. However, let’s not get into all that, the problem I face is with students not willing to question their own selves. At least we did not have any one to push us to questioning, but here, students are very formulaic – draw a line, cut the paper, size of font, format like this : all needs to be told. I remember that we adopted such things just from exhibitions of our seniors’ work. Where there are some students over-prepared on a presentation day, where they prepare even their speech (like how you do in Oscars!) there are others who don’t feel the need to prepare.
Ideas are thrown at them and I don’t understand that if they are in a creative course, can’t they understand what to pick for themselves. Even if they can’t, they can at least follow what is being said (be instructional). I do not like students who are insincere. Students in academy are skillful, but their mental activity is less, or very low. To reflect on the faculty team, we are far too many heads than hands. We need a single head, who co ordinates the programme and supporting staff, who are in resonance.
This is the stronghold of KRV. Rupali is the head – thinking and coordination. We support her in her decisions. The final call is hers. She is also extremely capable – theoretically. On the other hand, the bunch of faculty (us) under her are all of same age group and connect very well. However, the first programme was extremely abstract. We had asked students to bring their heirloom (in the form of stories, objects, ideas, memories, etc.) which they lose in the course of time. The project was the reconstruction of the heirloom through their attributes.
Now, the students’ outlook was similar. However, since the project was a lot more personal, many of them spoke naturally. The subject was “I” and “my” association. Perhaps that helped. Further, the theoretical discussions of the students with their faculties helped in breaking the norms. What was difficult was the construction of the heirloom in to a physical object through narratives. Everyone in the end was somehow was fed with an idea. There were some original too. However, later on they were well received by the jury. But my problem was that many students did not understand what they had done. I don’t consider this as healthy.
At academy, we were dealing with the idea of a Repository for “The little Prince”. Now little prince is a lovely book. It asks large questions in simple ways. But for the students, it was just a story book. The students in academy were almost convinced that readings have no relevance to forms. They already had a notion that architecture means designing fancy buildings. As a teacher, we can’t even say no to this fact. But it is extremely difficult to explain students that buildings can be read. That they have meanings which can be constructed. These meanings also help in defining the form. How do you convey this? I do understand that it does not happen in just a single project. It takes time – perhaps the entire course to understand that architecture is more than a building. But I am worried for academites because the faculty in the further years does not think this way.
On the other hand, I thought that perhaps students are not old enough in their experience of life to understand the complexities of little prince. But that was the easiest we could choose. How does one otherwise inculcate the habit of familiarizing students the relationship between culture, architecture and social studies? It is necessary to do it in first year. My worry at academy is that no one else will do that in the later years. Their idea of cultural space is just an art gallery, an artist’s village and a museum of modern art – and they would not even look at who are the most prominent, or contemporary artists in the country.
At KRV, the faculty is already interdisciplinary. Hence they are exposed to different media directly from the first year. However, their degree of articulating physical form, I felt was very low. Everyone manage to find their niche as an practitioner at KRV. Be it research, film, interior, architecture or storytelling. The paradox is that Academy actually has all such different departments, but there is nothing happening between them. Adarkar wants to convert Academy into a digital environment (without any context). He feels that we can make smarter buildings in the coming 50 years if we are equipped with digital technologies. For a matter of fact, there are not even attempts to create a website for Academy as a step towards this mission. I appreciate Adarkar’s vision, but I can’t reason out for myself, that being a social activist, how he can overlook more important issues surrounding the city.
There is too much theory into KRV. Sometimes, it feels unnecessary. But it manages to produce some interesting concepts. KRV is a closed circuit, while Academy is an open one. Anyone with a strong thought can almost rule academy right now. It is headless. The people have ancient thoughts, while KRV is so fresh. Experience is not helping somehow. It needs fresh talent.
Within this pool of thought, there are things that i will discuss in my subsequent mails, with specific examples.
