Case 2:
Date of Investigation: 24/04/2010
The interview was conducted on behalf of my college for our Dept. magazine. The interview was largely focused on general and current issues concerning the present day architectural practice and education in India. It has published in our Dept. Magazine "OCULUS" 's second issue.
Investigators:
1) Shreyank S Khemalapure: Gets fugitives talking.
2) Praveen Alva: Criminal Journalist.
3) Prasad Rotti: Guest interviewer.
P.A: Did you always wanted to be an architect?
P.C: Not always. In fact before sitting for the entrance exam I was looking for various options.
P.A: Could you describe what is, your kind of architecture?
P.C: Well that’s a deep and long question, very difficult to answer easily. Basically architecture I would say, where the joy of inhabitation takes priority over the impact of the visual. I feel that too many architects design from a view point that someone will turn to a corner and look at the building and say ‘WOW’! I would like to do work where the priority is that someone can inhabit it for 5 years and then look back at those 5 years with affection. So what we do is we facilitate cultures of inhabitation, then through repeated acts of inhabitation breed memories which build up your liking and love for the place. There is an aesthetic that develops after the architect has finished his work and you have to design from that point, as to what happens when you’re no longer there. Architecture is very different from the performing arts in that sense, because those are the arts which live in the presence of the artist. But architecture is like many of the visual arts; it has to survive in the absence of the artist. We get too preoccupied with what we have to say about the work and we believe that the meaning of the work comes from what we put into it. But actually the meaning of the work comes through the pattern of inhabitation that happens after we have done our work.
P.A: What does style and signature mean to you?
P.C: I think style is a wrong starting point; style should be a by-product. It’s should be a by-product of trying to doing something meaningful. It should not be a starting point by which you can just fix meanings with some predetermined solutions. It’s unfortunate that many architects get preoccupied with questions of style, I don’t think about it. In fact one should avoid labels of any kind, because once you start attaching yourself to a label then that begins to constrain what you do. Rather then that, just focus on the essence of what you’ve got at that very moment.
P.A: According to you what makes a building iconic?
P.C: Iconic is a very loaded word and I think it is much trapped in this question of style. What we really need to get comfortable with, are buildings that can be part of the background and still be great architecture. Iconic is not high on my priorities to what I wish to achieve. But sometime I might do some building which because of its specific location needs to be iconic but you need to be very careful and try for it only in those locations. For example Brigade Rubix is a building that we are doing which seems to be iconic that’s because it’s a focal element in the approach road to that neighborhood. Another aspect would be that the building by its very program should be a public symbol like a sports stadium or a major museum. Then we can look at making it iconic. If I’m doing a house or a regular I.T park or a hotel, then those need not necessarily be iconic.
S.K: What is your take on architectural practice in Bangalore?
P.C: I’m very encouraged by the general cultural of architectural practice in Bangalore. One is that there is this concern among many practices to creating this very strong sense of place and not get preoccupied with iconic form or fashionable trend, so that’s a very healthy sign. This has been a legacy of Bangalore and I think our firm has something to do with it. Being the first practice in Bangalore and have been very comfortable with the idea of architecture of the background. Even if you look at what the firm was doing in the 1950s of 1960s, at the time when that generation of contemporary Indian architects was very concerned about creating the symbols of the newly independent nation, the priority here was more to the earn respect of the local community rather then building grand public symbols. And to a certain extent, I think this has affected the culture of practice in Bangalore, were there is this local rootedness and not so much of a concern for grand symbols. If you look at what was happening earlier it was architects from Mumbai, Ahmadabad, Delhi who were grabbing the limelight and winning most of the design awards. If you consider design awards as a form of measurement, then the center of gravity has shifted to Bangalore. I think Bangalore will become a center for influence in Indian architecture.
S.K: Do you believe that there is degradation in professional education in India?
P.C: Yes, in all fields. It’s tending to be more vocational, and there is no emphasis on critical thinking. I think the mistake that we made just after independence was that we separated research from education, a trend which was created in the basic sciences and which spread into education in general. So the education system had people who just taught and who were not researchers. In India the mistake what we make is to get trapped by the fallacy that in a college the only people who are coming to learn are the students. What we really need to create is places where the faculty members are coming to learn; and that energy should be driving student learning. A large percentage of our colleges unfortunately have faculty who are not learners, not researchers, not even exceptional practitioners. A basic qualification to teach architecture should be that you should either be doing original research work which is published, or doing original practice which should be winning awards, competitions, getting published. You should be a cut above the rest to teach but unfortunately it’s not the scene.
S.K: How important do you think publication and documentation in terms of architecture?
P.C: It’s very important and it’s something that is unfortunately neglected in India. It’s an essential tool, it’s a very mundane tool but it’s a foundation on which a profession builds theist own sense of tradition, history and criticism. Without that the publication doesn’t follow, the research doesn’t follow, the historical analysis doesn’t follow and we lack that.
P.A: Do you think the architectural education abroad suits the way we practice in India?
P.C: This question doesn’t have a straight forward answer. You got to remember, to go abroad takes quite a bit of effort, and the people who have taken the initiative to go to abroad and come back are the kind of initiative taking people. In that sense they are the cream of the overall pool of architects, and they would do well even if they have continued to stay in India because they are that kind of people. The training overseas in most part has much greater deal of rigor, because they make you think critically and they have faculty who are researchers and cutting edge practitioners themselves. But that doesn’t necessarily create the kind of architect one needs, because eventually something has to be internalized within your sense of self. Education is really using the context of knowledge seeking to internalise something and build your sense of self and identity. Each person is unique, they have unique form of expression and you have to come in terms with that and let that flow naturally. But unfortunately too many of us get influenced by trends, and ‘isms’: something like Deconstruction catches in as a trend, and suddenly everyone is doing that. If education builds’ a strong sense of self we would get a greater depth of critical thinking in terms of architecture everywhere. But unfortunately we have international culture of heroes and imitators.
P.A/ S.K: How do you think we can create a loop between what is taught is architectural schools and what is practiced in office? Do you think there is apathy?
P.C: Yes there is apathy. But for example in a place like Bangalore, there is a large pool of fairly talented architects who would be more than willing to teach if the system is more responsive. Because you know a practitioner is also looking for forms of learning, and teaching is a form of learning. Even if you are teaching something basic for 1st year students, to stand in front of 30 students and to clearly articulate what you know, one would be challenged by that very act. As for now the interactions happen at an informal level, where the students approach us. But for some reasons colleges doesn’t encourage such things and they don’t encourage it because we have not raised this high standard of faculty as learners.
S.K: Around the world the global events are marked with spectacular architectural masterpieces, like Beijing Olympics and forth coming London Olympics for example. In India the commonwealth games are round the corner and we are sidelined in terms of creating an architectural statement. Why do you this is happening in India?
P.C: There is more of politics and government interference in how large public projects are carried out. That’s a part of the problem. The other problem in India is that we don’t really have a tradition of urban design. We tend to look at the cities only as functional entities. Our cities have problem of sense of authenticity in India, because when we talk about Indian culture, any definition of authenticity tends to be located in the village. If look at the research in social anthropology it was largely focused on the villages. It’s only now that people have started to look at the cities but even then it’s more of technical rather than cultural research. The city as a site of culture, as a location of the avant-garde, the city as the cutting edge of cultural production – these notions have not come into light as yet in India. We tended to look at cities very functionally. We just produce 2 dimensional land use plans, and we don’t have the tradition of urban design, seeking to build neighbourhoods, public symbols, visual identity of the city. These things are still lagging in our urban design intentions.
S.K: Could you explain the notion ‘belonging to a place’, or ‘of the place’?
P.C: I have to come back to the earlier point I made of facilitating a culture of inhabitation and memory. It’s like you live in a house and suppose your family keeps meeting at your house. And one day you sit in the verandah and you keep chatting till 4 in the morning after dinner. After that you keep talking about that day saying ‘do you remember we sat in the verandah and we kept talking till 4 in the morning’. Then the verandah takes on a new meaning. So that’s how that sense of place and memory builds up. And one has to create architecture to facilitate that culture. Another aspect would be climate. It’s by recognizing climate, the natural contour, flora and fauna, responding to site, those also create a sense of place. So I would say it’s really being sensitive to context, physical & climatological context and social context of pattern of inhabitation.
S.K: Your take on, Indian identity in architecture.
P.C: Its same again say as style. It’s a wrong starting point. When you take it as a starting point then you will be looking at superficial labels and facades, you will never go beyond the surface. You’re dealing with Indian sites, Indian clients, Indian material, Indian climate so many things are Indian. Just deal with these things honestly and rigorously, the final product will surely be Indian. An identity or a culture is something that is alive, so never try to define it. When you define it, then it’s like culture with your head turned backwards all the time.
P.A: Is there any architect or designer whose work you admire?
P.C: F.L. Wright is one who I really admire. Corbusier for his attitude. Carlos Scarpa, and Tadao Ando only that I’m bit concerned for one language dominates all of Ando’s projects. But the quality of work is good.
P.A: How do you unwind yourself?
P.C: Very simple things, read books, listen to music, and talk to friends.
Quick fire:
Chandigarh city: visionary for its time
Bangalore metro: technical great, disastrous in terms of urban design.
Brand architects in Indian: who are they?
Landscape: neglected dimension of architecture
Corbusier or Wright: Wright
Form follows function or function follows form: Neither . I will say, ‘form should transcend function’
Tschumi or Eisenmen: Neither.
Guggenheim New York or Bilbao: New York.
Top five:
5 books: Complexities and contradictions in architecture by Robert Venturi, Art, objects by Jeanette Winterson, Forgotten truth by Huston Smith, The ethics of authenticity by Charles Taylor, Welcome to the Urban revolution by Jeb Brugmann.
5 buildings: Falling waters by F.L. Wright, Barcelona pavilion by Meis, Querini-Stampalia Foundation by Carlos Scarps, Church on water by Ando, Crystal palace by Paxton. I got a list of historical buildings like Fathepur sikri, Padmanabapuram palace, just go through the city of Rome.
5 people: That’s getting too personal.
5 places: Bangalore because of my own personal history, I enjoyed Philadelphia, Barcelona, London.
5 film: Pan’s labyrinth, Italian film El Postino, One flew over the cuckoo’s nest, some of the Guru Dutt movies and early Shyam Bengal movies like Pyaasa and Ankur.
P.A: Do you think that after such long successful architectural practice, do you think that you have achieved everything that you wanted to do when you started as an architect?
P.C: At every moment (even now) I feel like I have just started.
No comments:
Post a Comment