Drawing on the Phone

Sent from Samsung Mobile

First year and theoretical design

I think most of the times, the grand conceptual ideas that we craft out our first year design projects from are not received as intensely as desired. However, this shall always be the case with first year since they are in the initial stages of learning the basics of architecture - from its vocabulary to the issues. Much effort is invested in getting them out of the literal interpretations to explore the poetics. Theories, that we hope to realize into real space, thus waste themselves, although sometimes they do manifest interesting results.

On the other hand, first year projects always end up being conceptual manifestations or translations of theories. These turn up to be what a practising professional would otherwise produce as the first iteration of a theoretical understanding. Thus, i believe that first year projects that i have been involved with have immense potential to substantiate theoretical discourses at a preliminary level. It would be really exciting to work with an enthused student on poetics of space right in the first year, where a student does not accept crits but develops ideas and sharpens his/her mentor's sketchy thoughts. That I think would lead to the success of not only a design, but a design studio.

Art - Expression - Imagination

Can one reduce one's life to be just utilitarian? Why did humans start to paint, craft, dance, sing or write? They are not related to any of our basic needs of living. The intrinsic human need to express is what creates meaning for existence. Is meaning so important for existence? Perhaps it comes out of the desire of the self to go beyond the body. It manifests the need to conquer a larger world, that doesnot exist here. It comes out of the exigencies of the individual for a universal exploration. Through such expression, one makes imagination possible. Imagination allows the self to go beyond the real and existential.

What is the need for sharing imagination? Why do people share imaginations? Why do they ask others to join them with their imagination? Perhaps in imagining a new world, one makes a new social space, which still exists within the current one, and by default is lived through the institutions of the present space. Fears of being singled out, or social exclusion perhaps force us to share imaginations. Through this they try to validate their new imagined social space. Expressions are also probably tools to validate imaginations. The form of Epressions belong to the real world. Hence imaginations become acceptable to some extent. Some believe in them, some remain intrigued, some question and others remain unaffected. Many others consume them.

When expressions are consumed, they take the form of entertainment. Entertainment has thus become an industry. It sucks in a lot of people, emerging into popular culture. It has made its own multifarous institutions. Institutions although validate expressions, they end up guarding them. Art is thus the domain of expression, which gives meaning to life. Architecture has the possibility of engaging with all forms of expressions. Thus it becomes unmanagable and complex - the mother of all arts. We have reduced it to construction and buildings.

If students realize this intrinsic connection of architecture with art, they could start looking at all forms of expression with a close eye. They would only then appreciate and acknowledge expression of human life.

Mumbai Joy: A Critical Reflection

The AOA Vertical studio 2012 "Mumbai Joy" will come to an end tomorrow and we are here, waiting at the college to get all the prints for the exhibition organized. We have about 40 A0 and 8 8' x 4' panels to be printed (it's 12.00 am right now) and the printer has just started printing our sheets. All of us are wondering when will we get the final prints and I am here, sitting with Ajey waiting patiently for our prints to arrive.


Ravindra Punde and Rohit Shinkre were here for some time during the late evening. We couldn't help but get into a self evaluatory, self critical mode. We were discussing about how the Vertical studio turned out to be, although not in much detail. but thoughts keep crossing my mind on this issue and I wonder what I got out of the studio.


I do not really know if the studio has been a success, or even close to success, whether there has been any positive aspect that the student body sees. There were various possibilities and opportunities of learning in the "Mumbai Joy" studio, where we aimed to map cultures of Mumbai. We selected 10 areas of research which included celebrations, films, theatre, food, festivals, gymkhanas, fine arts, crafts, music and cricket. Each group had a team of 20 students and 2-3 faculties. We wished to map Mumbai cultures, a serious, rigorous effort to understand distinct patterns of the city we live in.

I will now begin discussing gaps, lags in communication between the students and the organizing team. Later, I will try locating the problems. Lastly I would try to open up possible strategies for our future operation.

Preparation:
We prepared as faculty. We prepared a final compiled 'intent sheet' with each of these sub groups. In order that student got enough time to decide and choose their area of interest, we floated an e mail, rather an e mail form with the entire description of the exercise along with a registration mail which asked them to choose their first three preferences among the 10 areas. I think we were prepared.

Later, we individually submitted our  methodologies of working and compiled it to understand each others' way of working.

GAPS:
1. It seems that many students assumed the studio to be a workshop where they would be trained in their area of preference.  For example, many in the fine arts group thought they would be involved in the production of paintings and artwork if they registered with this group. Students in the 'crafts' group  thought they would make craft. Some students opted for food since it seemed too playful. This clearly suggested that many students did not read the introduction of each of the sub groups carefully. They did not understand the intent of the studio. They didnot ask for clarifications. We as faculty assumed they understand well.

2. Faculties thought that students would be enthusiastic to channel their energies in their areas of interest and that every student must be able to relate to at least one of these areas. We assumed students would be eager to know more and research on these subjects. It wasn't the case.

3. Vertical studio meant the formulation of groups vertically - across classes. There are two divisions - aided and unaided, in the college and very few students interact. We thought this would be a good opportunity for students across classes to know and learn from each other. However, I found personally that there was hardly any intermingling or strong interaction between them.

4. The 10 groups, we idealized, could work independently. We never thought of overlaps or sharing of information except the Mumbai map.

5. We assumed students to have drive and skill to be able to analyze things around them.

PROBLEMS:
1. There was a clear case of mis-communication in the intent of the studio. We aimed at mapping (document+analyse+represent) and it turned out to be a documentation project.

2. Students had no idea of research. Our fourth year students are no equipped with enough training to accumulate and assort data.

3. Vertical studio groups did not interact vertically. Student groups did not mingle much. Many did not attend, many shuffled. All data remained isolated.

4. Field studies were unsuccessful. Students didnot have methods of observation or any idea of conducting surveys, interviews or taking pictures. They had no clue of "what to document", or what qustions to ask. They remained limited to questionnaires handed by us. There seemed to be very little effort from students to dig out information.

5. I found a serious lack of drive and initiative in the entire groups. No one waited for their panels to be printed and put up. Students had no attachment to their work or no excitement to see their work displayed.

PROBLEM LOCATIONS:
1. We get a large amount of student group highly under-informed and under-confident. Students new to the city, shy students and those coming from non-English backgrounds find it extremely difficult to communicate. I too was an under-informed student and particularly had no skills for architecture, except modelmaking. However, I had the drive.

2. Research has always been assumed to be an activity that is subsidiary and something that is 'all talk', which does not fetch money, and can not fill the stomach. The relation of research to design is seldom explained to students. Further, this gap widens due to over-emphasis on production of designs and drawings.

3. Faculties differ in their schools of thought, but make them personal issues. As mature individuals, we need to appreciate each others' theoretical positions and widen our spectrum of vision. However, the root of the problem lies in faculties pouring in from diverse groups, schools of thought and opinions. Recently, the age divide may be another big reason for the incoherence and intolerance of ideas.

4. Design at Academy is looked at in a very constricted manner. Architecture students are hardly made to (note the assertion) interact with other disciplines that are housed by the same building. Neither do students  capitalize, nor does faculty encourage or force. All remain happy in their own comfort zone.

5. As a corollary to the above point, I believe students can take larger initiatives to bridge these gaps. However, I find students are unmotivated, who see no point in discussing any issues beyond marks, and do not take any step towards making design education well rounded. Neither are they exposed, nor do they want to expose themselves. Internet seems to be a safe hideout and prevents physical exploration of our own city. Generally, the kind of students we are getting seem to be uninterested and hardly care for design. They are here for a degree and want to score good marks.

POSSIBLE TRAJECTORIES:
1. We need serious orientation programmes for students towards architecture and its scope. Further, we need orientation programmes for all sub-disciplines under the purview of the discipline of architecture. Students need to be engaged in the programme of architecture only if they understand and are willing to invest their maximum time in it.

2. Research programmes have to be initiated and they have to be funded well. This will possibly bring in a reassurance in the activity of study through documentation and analysis. There needs to be research method courses at all stages of the architecture course. Examples of research and its practical usage has to be spelled out from the beginning. The fact that research is closely related to pragmatic problems and is a respectable and viable industry has to be established.

3. Faculties may not be selected by word of mouth. They must be rigorously interviewed and their past work  and credentials has to be taken into consideration. They must be qualified and mature enough to teach.

4. Design programmes have to be reworked. Exchange programmes need to be initiated. Interaction between various design institutes must be made compulsory and students should be made to understand other methodologies of working.

5. Counselling for students joining the stream is required. We get a lot of students whose true passion lies somewhere else and due to cultural pressures, end up joining a professional course like architecture which is considered to be the toughest of all courses. We need to admit students based on their motivation levels, not as per their marksheets. The reason why most colleges abroad seem to be successful is because they choose their students. We have no choice. We have to accept what is given to us.

I wish to end this post here. It is a highly personal, narrow and restricted evaluation of the entire situation and much of it may be incorrect. However, it is a documentation of my experience of this entire studio that keeps me agitated enough to not make peace with the system, and thus maintaining my drive. All faculties felt students did not  perform to their capabilities. But the landscape and nature of problems encountered by every one may be different. Thus, the above account may be completely invalid. Also, it is restricted to only 5 points in the framework. There are many other aspects to our non-success. On the other hand, the above points could have been supported with examples or cases - which one intends to skip only to maintain the length of this summary and preserve the integrity of the student.

Overall, it has been an event which has consumed a lot of resource and time to excite a small section of student body which would have taken the extra initiative even otherwise. I believe, it was a greater opportunity for the faculty to understand the diversity of the practice of architecture and to mould their subjects to the specificity of the place they live in. The generic nature of information that the students are fed with meanwhile widens the gap between a student's practice and their immediate context. This further leads to strengthened belief in objectification of architecture.  I hope after reading this post, there would be reactions, and I would be glad to receive them here.

Intelligent v/s the Wise

Looking at smart people I have started observing what makes some smart people different than the other? How does one describe the specificities of different kinds of smart people? The ultimate adjectives, which seem reasonable measures are the intelligent and the wise.

I am a big fan of the wise instead of the intelligent. How does one characterize the two? Through my understanding, here are my distinctions between the two.

Firstly, let me make clear distinction between data and information. Something purely factual (a first hand reading of any situation) is data. It concerns with hard reality. We generate information through collection of data. The study of information creates knowledge. Thus the intelligent are those who are controlled by and in control of knowledge. The intelligent work within set knowledge systems and operate through this understood and accepted system. The intelligent will be able to help you with all kinds of things that exist in the real world. They talk of facts and their synthesis. You can trust them on the authenticity of information. Their skill lies in memorizing and processing the memory to get the right information at the right time. They work exceptionally well within structured environments. These are the people made for the cities – they can impress people and make their way out of situations, through legal and technical knowledge in their respective fields.

However, the intelligent could make mistakes in non-structured environments. They are highly susceptible to fall into traps of incorrect decisions in places where no formal knowledge systems exists. Wading through such field is the expertise of the wise.

It is yet difficult to define if the wise make their way through intelligence. Let’s assume that the wise are intelligent by virtue of their ability to contextualize any kind of data (they do not understand data through knowledge structures). They operate in the field of information, more basely, in the field of data, making their own meanings and readings that are highly contextual to different environments and situations. In this view, the wise are intelligent not because they can memorize all the data, but due to their ability to grasp new data for a particular scenario efficiently and quickly. The wise work with human response and behaviour. In this sense, the difference between the intelligent and the wise is similar to the nature of scalars and vectors respectively – while one is, in essence, quantitative, the other has multiple transforming aspects (like direction, momentum and acceleration) to it which makes it quantitative in the realm of (in  the purview, subset) of qualitative.

The wise are thus able to foresee new knowledge systems / structures and are able to take tactical decisions. Due to their ability to contextualize any kind of information, they are always at their toes and are able to take logical decisions, which bear results for the time being. The wise may not be able to give long term decisions, they may be able to frame a decision that is relevant for the immediate action. In long term, thus, the wise may make mistakes. But also, they may give creative outlooks towards the future. There is a value to this creativity, this leap that the wise takes for the future based on the assumptions of the current. The intelligent may be strategists. They may not conceptualize futures based on current conditions, but imagine new conditions for the future. In doing so, the intelligent miss out on a lot of humour and wit. But the intelligence of their decisions can be harnessed through following their plans.

Another important distinction one can make is the amount of rationality that the intelligent show versus the wise. The intelligent would always have a high level of rationality as compared to the wise since they rely on very safe back up like factual information. The wise use personal logic and bring in a lot of subjectivity to the interpretation of existing data. Also, they rely more on personal experience than objective case studies. While the intelligent would build up a decision based on a range of case studies, the wise would use personal history to give an output.

This post is under construction. It may continue if more ideas occur. Meanwhile, suspended.