Of the Cute and the Zany

will update citation soon!

Intercourse

Description of a ritual

"Vedic rituals did not require temples or even the creation of statues. They were based on fire sacrifices of various kinds that needed only brick platforms. Fire was the agent that enabled the transformation of the sacrificial food (matter) into smoke and air (energy). Though no early Vedic altars have survived, the legacy of their rituals is still alive in Hinduism, which views this city as one of its most sacred. At dawn every morning, thousands of devotees gather on ghats leading down to the shores to face the sun that rises across the broad expanse of the Ganges River and is reflected in its waters. Half immersed in the river, they greet the sun by cupping the water of the Ganges into their palms and pouring it back into the river with arms extended. This is followed by a slow turn of 360 degrees while standing in place, a miniature act of circumambulation. A quick dip in the river completes the ritual. This ritual can be repeated many times or performed with greater elaboration that includes long chants and sequences of yogic postures."


Francis D K Ching, Mark Jarazombek, Vikramaditya Prakash. A Global History of Architecture, second edition, John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2011. pg. 97

How to write a good Research Paper?

One of our faculties at Yale and passed this on to us and I thought it will be great to share it here!
--

How to write a good research paper?


Argument: What is it that you want to say in the essay? how does it differ from existing literature? why is your topic important? Make sure you state your argument clearly. The more original, the better.

Contents: wealth of sources, both primary and secondary, coherently chosen; all the sources are relevant to the topic

Structure: a good paper is well organized; it is a good idea to present your argument in the introduction, to articulate it in the main body (which can be divided into sections), to re-examine it in the conclusion. A well written, strong conclusion is crucial to a good paper. The sequencing of sentences should be logical, so that your reader is able to easily follow your argument. Your paper must have a bibliography at the end.

Resources: use more than just primary sources, include works from the syllabus or from other courses if relevant, write a good bibliography divided between primary and secondary sources. A good paper shows command of relevant secondary literature.

Style: clear points, elegantly made. Vivid vocabulary, structure of sentences varies. Never use jargon (unless relevant) or colloquial sentences. Quotations are clearly identified by indenting if longer than three lines or in inverted comas if within the text. Your paper should be a pleasure to read. Follow the Chicago Manual of Style for footnotes and Bibliography.

Orthography: very few, ideally no typos or mechanical errors. Don't rush! Read your paper carefully before sending it, ideally a few days after you've finished it.

Title: a well-chosen title is a good starting point. It should briefly introduce your paper, if it is witty, and your paper is good, it is a plus.

Length: Stay within the word limit, you don't need more words to write a good paper.

Images: If you use images, make sure to include captions where you explain briefly what they are and where they come from. Images are documents just like texts and need to be referenced.

Presentation: a good looking paper is NOT necessarily a good paper, but it is a plus if a good paper looks good!

Anecdotes to ponder

"What will the chair be for a frog?"

"If I and chair are the same thing, what can I afford for the chair?"

"How do you live in a house with three husbands?"

"Having your own room means being private or being in isolation? Does being private mean being isolated?"

- Prasad Shetty

Construction Sites - II

Decolonizing Architecture

"It's like the person who had good handwriting was made the leader of Gram Panchayat."
- Prasad Shetty on the attitude in which architects were taught and imagined in the first few decades of the introduction of the profession in India.

"They were expected to execute the drawings to accuracy on site - so a person who could read drawings well and supervise sites was a good architect. But any good engineer can make a building. The architect must realise that his/her task is to craft space."

The Scattered Present

In the past few months, I have probably upset so many people around me, close, not so close, for reasons known or unknown, for aspects valid or invalid. My silences, utterances, all have failed me, all worked against my intentions. Neither did my actions bring me peace, nor did they resolve my dissatisfactions. Everything seemed to entangle more than before with every succeeding day. One problem resolved into another. How does one make sense of the situation, I don't know?

I shouldn't get into describing these events. The blog may have no longer remained a space for speaking aloud. I had always thought of it as a personal diary, but what a fallacy it was! Someone has said very aptly, that we all write to be read by someone. I wrote primarily to record, out of instinct, for myself, as much to be read, of course by someone. To be sure, this "someone" was an evolving version of the self, more than any other. Anyway, social media's publicness often leads you to strange forms of repression through self censorship, and as I write this, I am already worried of so many (mis) interpretations it might pose for some. But one is not ill-intended, as often construed of products and producers of social media when they go against an opinion or person. I don't even know how, and if I must begin to even elaborate it, because it will complicate so many problem-ridden affairs that pushed me to an outpour.

These days, I wonder how, if I were to, begin to resolve problems one by one; set equations straight again, rejoin cracking ends, crease crumpled edges, rework relationships...the imaginary dialogues roll in the head, and suddenly in a flash of negativity, things fall apart. I laugh at myself to the extent of disarray that I myself seem to have created, through my own distancing. But this moving away from things, was perhaps only to come closer to myself. Have I been so wrong that I can not enter myself even in bypassing the other? Or had I gotten too close to someone to make it too difficult for them to lose me? And could this conscious process of movement towards the self be labelled as "ego"?

I wondered for a long time on what is identity without ego, and how does one claim agency without having a sense of identity? Often, ego is seen in a pejorative way. But can a historically identity-striken person give up the pursuit of self definition when he/she achieves enough clarity to discern the feeling of right from wrong? How does one resist power that possibly could overrun certain unexplored dimensions of a productive ego? Such questions still seek their root, their location, for it is the place which will help address the means through which reconciliation may be sought out. Which hidden repressions have played out in the past to ruffle so much, so rapidly? Are these just circumstances that have conspired a difficult environment? How can so many forces and energies go wrong at the same time that they seem to make a world so disharmonious?

How would things change? Does one need to work on them, or wait for time to heal? If only I could foresee, I could make an intervention. I am tied into the existing circumstantial pattern that holds me back from taking new steps towards repair. What if situations worsen in my intervention, what if experiments fail, what if I lose more? Perhaps these need psychological attention? I remain unsure.

Undoing a Screw

Of the many phenomenal experiences, the first one I want to list is that of opening a screw that is tightened into anything. Unless you don't use force against it, the screw doesn't release itself out of the substratum. Thus, only while you push it in, the screw brings itself out. I have always found this oppositional nature of intent and action paradoxically profound.

Shall list more over time.

On 'Style' and 'Type' in architecture

In architecture, studies in image, iconography, symbols, style, and such other visual tropes are often seen as pejorative in the line of specific modern discourse that rejects ornament over building in the favour of studying its spatial configuration. To be sure, ornamentation over a building is the medium through which we "access" and "construct" historical narrative apparent in much of archaeological analysis. Can we consider the new urban motifs of the contemporary built forms for serious study in the present? How do we write histories of architecture by studying building ornamentations that get produced in the hypermediated space of information and exchange of images? My inquiry is triggered primarily in consideration of the question: how do the relief works at the two millennium old Kahneri caves in Mumbai gain more currency for architectural studies over the contemporary global fusion of plaster casts that are overlooked and dismissed culturally allegedly for their poor value?

We know for a fact that iconographic scholarship has been a serious practice, and scholars have invested their lives in understanding how intangible ideas get moulded into shapes and material. Iconographers have helped us decode for example, languages, codes and deeper myths around which ancient or pre-modern societies were probably structured. Several cultural products, including buildings are dated based on the motifs they carry - for they index the advent of technique and expertise, as much as adaptation and civilizational movement in history.  In this vein, would the iconographies of today not be valuable to write histories of built environment for the future? Would the transport and assimilation of motifs within a building, even if hypermediated, not be of any value to the architect's role as a cultural commentator? Often, there is a prevailing anxiety to embrace the discussions of "style" within architectural studies today. Such aversion is understandable in the register that often these become ready templates for uncritical building authors who want to reproduce effectual experiences through gimmicks. However, the articulation of a certain idea into style (that which becomes material), also underpins the ideologies through which the society negotiates prevalent forces for a given building. To reject the notion of "style" completely may not be wise - for in being kitsch, pastiche or even gaudy, it still holds value and comments about the dominant mode of production in a society. Can/should a society really free itself from 'style'?

The much celebrated Mannerist architecture of 15th century brought out unique commentaries on existing political tensions within the then European society through the subtle and subversive play of building elements to defy existing norms and beliefs. Architectural iconography became a poignant way thereby to encode a script of resistance, yet open up new orders of space and experience. (Mannerist, in fact, came from Italian maneria, which means 'exaggerated style in speech, art or other behaviour'). In the 18th century, the reinvigoration of classical forms in a pronounced and provocative manner by architects like Claude Nicholas Leadoux, Boullee or Lequeue offered critical social commentaries through their often fantastical architecture. This was a period that we know of as 'Neo-classicism'. The "-ism" must not be confused here to indicate a "stylistic" discourse, rather, a way in which architecture materially became a vehicle for certain political and ideological mobilization. More recently, in the 1970s, Robert Venturi's 'Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture' argued for embracing a certain vocabulary of architectural elements that modernism famously rejected, in order to produce a plurality of meaning which offers play in the everyday experience of architecture. Often marked as the key moment for a 'post-modern' discourse in architecture, the book influenced several architects who went on to create, yet again, provocative, humorous - sometimes even kitchy reproductions of architecture. Despite the role of architecture that offers social commentary through the mobilization of ornamentation - structural or applied (and certainly not devoid and divorced of parallel typological changes), there is a tendency to suppress the symbolic role of architecture, which is essentially negotiated through style. On the other hand, sytlistic (mis)appropriations are common  and index a range of values. However, can its discussion be totally excluded from historical analysis and understanding of the architectural object?

The discussion of architecture through style can be problematic if it is not undertaken critically, and delivered as a template of design. Contrastingly, we can argue that the speculations on societal structures based on analysis of building 'type' may be grossly incorrect, for we do not know the practices and precise myths which shaped these spaces. For example, archaeologist Suraj Pandit in his analysis of certain cave at Kanheri expressed how difficult it was to figure the function of a long cave which had stone platform strips with carved cup-shaped depressions at regular intervals. Was it a dining hall, was it a library, was it a place of preparation, was it a place of group mediation - we do not know! The diagram for all the above activities could potentially be same. How do we rely on typological analysis in such situations? In the contemporary times, in India, very few architects understand the notion of "type" - and thus, we do not see its active mobilization within our buildings. Often, default, accepted, already-formulated ways of organisation are replicated neutrally without understanding new contextual settings. The malls, corporate office blocks, the BHK - all are examples that exist in our very own environment that have largely been uncritically adapted and multiplied. Would architectural historians discard 'type' as a legitimate frame of analysis in this vein?

The opening up of new frames of architectural analysis must not reject the older ones. In this case, there is no need to denigrate the scholarship of 'style' in order to bring to force the analytical order of 'type'. Historians must be generous in accepting new frames of references through which the object of architecture can yield knowledge. The rejection of one over the other is a modern symptom which flattens interpretation to singular way of living and thinking. If we consider ornament as an integral part of building, what kind of building could we craft? Does the over-emphasis of type force us to think of buildings as an organization of spaces, rather than its craft? How can we marry craft with type, how can we marry ornament with construction in a meaningful way - not simply as an application, but as a way of space making? And in that case, is there a way to bridge the discourses of 'style' and 'type' for a more wholesome architectural history?


I have not detailed here the definition of 'style' or 'type' and the theoretical discourse around them. However, I expect that the readers will look into their histories and the criticism around them.