HOW CAN I CONNECT?

Submitted by

SOUNDHAR BALAMURUGAN

In partial fulfilment of the requirements

For the award of the degree

Of

BACHELOR OF ARCHITECTURE

Under

FACULTY OF ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING

In

SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING

ANNA UNIVERSITY

CHENNAI 600 025

APRIL 2015

HOW CAN I CONNECT?

Submitted by

SOUNDHAR BALAMURUGAN

In partial fulfilment of the requirements

For the award of the degree

Of

BACHELOR OF ARCHITECTURE

Under

FACULTY OF ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING

In

SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING

ANNA UNIVERSITY

CHENNAI 600 025

APRIL 2015

DECLARATION

I declare that this dissertation entitled “HOW CAN I CONNECT?” is the result of my

work and prepared by me under the guidance of AR. MITUL DESAI and that it has not

formed the basis for the award of any degree, diploma, associate ship or fellowship of

any other University or Institute previously. Due acknowledgement have been made

wherever anything has been borrowed from other sources.

Date: 06.04.2015 Signature of Candidate

Roll No: 2011701048 SOUNDHAR BALAMURUGAN

BONAFIDE CERTIFICATE

Certified that this Dissertation forming part of Course work AD - 9452, of VIII th

Semester, B. Arch, entitled “HOW CAN I CONNECT?” SUBMITTED BY

“SOUNDHAR BALAMURUGAN., 2011701048” to the School of Architecture &

Planning, Anna University for the award of under graduation Degree in Architecture is

a bonafide record of work carried by him under my supervision.

Certified further that to the best of my knowledge the work reported herein does not

form part of any other thesis or dissertation on the basis of which degree or award was

conferred on an earlier occasion on this or any other candidate.

External Jury Supervisor

Head of the Department DEAN

Date: Date :

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

ABSTRACT

This dissertation is a very personal and emotional journey to understand what makes us intuitively exclaim

“ beautiful ”

when part of an awesome space.

There are things in this world that when in interaction with, we develop an instant emotional connect. Things beyond the visible. Things beyond analytical reasoning, which cannot be explained immediately. These may not be just experiences with architecture, but is felt in our everyday life.

I have been seeing people and myself, when we involve ourselves with an object or space we sometimes almost immediately fall in an intimate relationship with it. Let it be because of the way a wooden chair has been conceived or even finished with a sandpaper, so smooth that you start to question how can a material sanded by something coarse be so smooth that it makes it so ambiguous if we are actually in contact or not?!?!?! At that moment when you move your palm over that surface, you automatically cut your chord with time searching for a bump or crack which would break this ambiguity. Or even when you are part of an architecture where maybe it doesn’t have those fancy shapes

and fancy effects and theories involved, but never misses to touch you. But how do we attain

this connection that makes the whole experience worthwhile?

I believe that the process of a design is more important than the product. But how do you go

about the process is more important, I feel.

We take all these design decisions keeping in mind the outcome and how the users would feel

inside it. But is that what really comes out? How do you know if the qualities of the space that

we are talking about is finally achieved or not? It’s a manner of practice.

I believe that the way in which a space or an object can touch us on a deeper level is when they share a sensuous interaction; pushing one or more emotions ahead of the rest; making us feel... This dissertation is a means by which I expect to understand how space develops a relationship with the user, a relationship comprising of many dialogues....

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Prologue

2. A Memoir

3. Case Studies

4. Questions Still Lingering in Me

5. Bibliography

Prologue This Dissertation is kind of a personal memoir and a series of dialogues that at certain

points of time I had with myself in order to push forward and to see if the questions I have been

asking was understood by me. I felt this necessary because sometimes we may have asked

the right question but without understanding the question with respect to the subject at hand,

it’s almost as good as a useless question.

A Memoir “Why did this question even occur to you in the first place?”

It was because of the place I am in right now. Here, Every day, Every discussion

doesn’t go without something being described as “Beautiful”. It reached a point of time when I

got tired of hearing the word so many times a day that it really started bothering me. Then at a

point, I started wondering why Bijoy says it so many times. Irritation turned to Anxiety. This was

continuously running in the back of my mind during every part of the day. Started, then did I

notice the expressions, the gestures, the body languages in the studio mainly of Bijoy when

something so immaculate needed to be conveyed to others. Basically, in our studio we have

people from different nationalities and from different regions in India itself. So Language was

never a standard thing. It mutated from Hindi when he was talking to the carpenters from Uttar

Pradesh to English when he talked to some architects who understood nothing but the common

English, then He would start talking in Gujarati to the Marvadi workers and the Artists from

Gujarat, and all through this will be running a parallel dialogue with his body language. So

everyone has an idea of what he is talking about at any point of time. These discussions were a

perfect example of - a talk from inside the stomach - “Adi vayir laendhu pesuradhu”... You could

always tell the difference between a person who is trying hard to talk like that from a person

who really talks like that. Through my internship period I have seen a lot of people come and

go....some who tried to follow Bijoy - in terms of mannerisms and started changing their attitude

to become like him...( I too at one point of time, but then realised that didnt suit me...so I

jumped back into my own self.) But it didn’t seem right. Something was always missing. But

Bijoy was able to produce amazing quality with the little carpenters now that he has. He was

connecting with the carpenters so well that he brought out what he wanted from them.

“What do you exactly mean when you say Beautiful?”

This word especially created a lot of misunderstandings of the whole idea that I am

trying to talk about here. It is often mistaken as the physical character - Beauty, as the main

subject of discussion. When I am talking about things being Beautiful , I actually mean the

amount of effort gone into the work. The result being so immaculate in its existence that the

work doesn’t need an explanation for its effort to be felt. Just a Glance is enough for us to

appreciate it, be moved by it. Something emanating this quality is what I consider Beautiful.

That’s something common in here. That’s how Beauty is felt and materialized here.

I always wanted to know what makes us connect with certain spaces or with certain objects

very intimately. It only occurred to me that we as human beings are very vulnerable to emotion.

Vulnerable not in the conventional sense but meant in a way that our response to emotional

sequences throughout life are more immediate be it repulsive or connected to. Vulnerable in

the sense that we make judgements based on things we are with, things we find right and

wrong are not always the same with all the people. But there are areas where all of us are

making judgements on a personal level. These judgements are made because I feel beauty in

any form causes some kind of an emotional or an intellectual chaos.

Thus creating a dialogue.

“What do you mean when you say <Connect>?”

By saying <Connect> I mean us being able to enjoy the space for what its being made

for. And there are times when the use trascends and the space gives way as another space,

extending from its intended usage. This is possible when we as humans are able to interact

with the space either with more than one sense or by more than one method.

That’s when I feel there is a connection between the user and the space.

“Why do you even want to connect?”

I think it’s a very straight forward answer... I don’t see the point of any existence if we

cannot. We are not robots. We require an understanding of the sense of place and which helps

us make / form memories, which we later in time remember; the whole scene - the smell, the

light, the fun, the people, the room................................ the Atmosphere.

“What are these judgements that we make?”

I mean Judgements in the sense that we immediately give an opinion on anything that

intrudes our space. Here by space I mean Our comfortability region. Am talking about these

judgements we make which maybe either a positive one or a negative one. And these

judgements may vary person to person even though they are passing judgements of the same

subject at hand.

“Dialogue between Architecture and the User?”

The exchange of opinions is what I refer to as a dialogue. But here the opinions formed

are because of the chaos created by architectural beauty. This chaos may be constructive or

destructive, but the ability of architecture to stir something in our minds is what I feel is the first

step towards starting a conversation with architecture. This conversation that you and

architecture have is what I mean by a dialogue where this dialogue is not between people, but

is between the space and its user. You know that point of time when you see structures and

maybe first exclaim or feel withdrawn by some aspects of the design or due to some elements

in the space... but after moving through the spaces, looking around, observing it from a different

part of the structure or from another angle, you find both the things you saw, first and now,

going well together and making sense and then you in your own mind realize what the other

space was. THERE, existed a dialogue between you and the architecture.

If we start looking back at the things, especially architecture, which has inevitably turned out to

have had one of the biggest impacts in everyone’s lives. From spaces which act as a

background to our lives to spaces which dictate the steps we take, architecture has become a

part of us.

What I mean when I talk about spaces that act as a background and those which are dictatorial

in nature is that there are spaces which are designed to only facilitate activities to take place.

Of course all designs are to facilitate something or the other but the difference is clearly

understood when you compare this with a space which is imposing. Take for example a

comparison between a Path with a railing on both sides which defines where a queue can be

formed and how the line moves controlling traffic. Whereas if you look at the corridor in the

Jewish Museum, it more or less does the same function of giving a sense of direction for a

function or for other experiences to take place. You can already feel the difference in the mood

created by the spaces or architectural elements... Where, one gives you some space to breathe

while the other scorns at you like a P.T master with a stick telling you where and how to go with

a stick in hand. Here it can be seen how clearly one space facilitates and the other which either

dictates the function either imposingly or as a need for social/ societal/ organizational order. But

either way whether architecture dictates or acts as a subtle entity, it can be very persuasive in

connecting with us, If it is created with an intention to.

The reason we always look back at the architecture of the past like the Roman colloseum, the

St.peter’s, the gothic churches or the pantheon and other such examples, for inspiration is

because of the fact that architecture then was maybe slightly different from the architecture

now. the attitude towards it. By “attitude towards architecture” I mean the way, the delight in

making such a creation exists.

Going back to the point of how learning of history will inform me of what all this will be useful

for…

So I have understood that in the past the industrial revolution combined with the strong theories

and philosophies by Adolf Loos and Louis Sullivan about Form Follows Function,; has brought

us to where we are right now.

Ok, now you know what happened, so what now? All this information, what are you trying to

say?

Am not trying to say anything, am just trying to understand if there is any way of practicing

architecture with the “delight in the making” factor. I know that there are other things in a

practice such as satisfaction and delight in the process of creation of architecture nowadays

also; I am not denying it, but what about the relationship that we share with the process of

making? All of us connect with this process in various ways… Some sketch to relate better with

the essence of the project, some make models, some write, some enact. It is impossible and

also not right to start talking about which method is the best method. The point of this whole

question is not to answer that, it is for me to understand where we are all heading towards; in

terms of our attitude towards how the making of architecture is looked at or practiced. This is

important for me to know as we are now entering into a new era. An era ruled by the digital

world. An era of parametricism where space will be conceived in a totally different process.

A Process which will allow us to result at spatial solutions without time being a burden on us.

Talking about time… What is time? Talking about time flashes in my mind the word “Conceive”

over and over again. I think there is a reason why we say “architecture is conceived…” blah

blah blah. We indefinitely refer to the notion of time and how like a baby before being born is

conceived and is matured over time, cultured for this world and molded to live.

Every word that we use, indefinitely defines how we look at our work / effort. Don’t you think

time, now is a vital factor in how architecture is created?!!!

I just want to take a leap now to make myself very clear about what we are in right now so that

the contrast is understood better.

Looking at the way in which we visualize architecture these days… Softwares – AutoCAD,

Sketchup, 3ds Max, Lumion, etc. These are ways we look and visualize things fast, to slow

down time. To concentrate time on things and processes which we think and maybe are more

important than these. The thing that confuses me is that isn’t that decision that we take, about

that proportion or the texture or the feel important at all? Then, if we are not able to visualize

what we are actually doing, then on what basis are we taking those critical decisions. Isn’t the

time involved in taking these important decisions and attending to these details important for us

to understand the project’s potential!!!!!!

Architecture is not a practice of just one disciple. I learnt that it is a practice of communication

too between all the people involved. We now have drawings of exact precision due to the boon

of the digital world. This now we take as granted. The idea of communication. I feel the need

the need to think about the communication as an important part of creation because information

is always iterated and delivered from one person to another. When there are more people

between the beginning and the end, the idea is iterated based on each person’s level of

understanding. And so it is often so that the end product doesn’t turn out to be what we had

designed. Communicating an idea properly to the workmen is important because it is an

individual’s idea or an idea of a collective of people for which more people are may be involved

in the making. For the idea to be transferred correctly from the conceiver to the maker, the

communication needs to be immaculate. Coming back, we take it for granted the ways of

communication through standardized representations. What were the methods of

communication then… to have been able to grasp the essence so truly.

People followed a language which we all follow even today but maybe do not give it the

importance it demands. A language which used the body; Our Self. And this plays a major part

in the way we use our body to communicate. Therefore expressing the design in no other way

than how it was conceived. The same body which we use as a tool to create structures is used

as a tool to communicate the idea of making it.

Gestures – That help us to relate to the subject at question without getting diverted. By

Gestures I don’t only mean the body language during communication of an idea to someone,

but also maintaining its essence during the art of making as well. E.g: The Papier Mache Video.

This reminds me of the way the making of buildings or art for that matter was spoken of... tales

and folklore... of the words spoken by great people. Then , there existed the trinity according to

the treaty of Vitruve by Marco Vitruvius Pollio.... Firmitas, Utilitas, Venustas. Which were the

qualities according to him, that a structure should exhibit. This meant that the structure should

be Solid, Useful and Beautiful.

Marco Vitruvius Pollio was the first formal architect and he gave this definition as to what a

structure must have in his book De Architectura.

This attitude towards structures continued through the ages in different forms :

XV Century - Leon Battista Alberti - Necessitas, Commoditas, Voluptas ( Necessity,

Convenience and Pleasure )

XVII Century - Francois Blondel - Distribution, Construction, Decoration

XIX Century - Hector Guimard - the Harmony, Logic, the Feeling

XX Century - Louis Sullivan - “Form follows function” Theory

- Pierre Luigi Nervi - Function, Structure, Form

- Christian De Portzamparc - Perception, Production, Representation

Till the 20th century, although phrases changed, the essence of the principles for building

remained.

But after the 20th century, Form follows function took over... the importance to the delight/

pleasure/ beauty diminished. For reasons being the industrialization, standardization,

minimalistic approaches, etc. which escalated the importance to the functionality of each

creation thereby stripping down structures to their bare necessities.

“Is History in the evolution of how aesthetics (or) the pleasure in the making of architecture

even relevant now?”

I think it is relevant, because I feel the need to know how the attitude towards

aesthetics has been looked upon in the past and how this attitude has changed over the years

maybe to get an idea of its evolution.

“How will this help you in your research?”

I am hoping to be informed of the different times when the whole idea of “delight in the

making of architecture” changes and in response to what! Whether it was people or was it a

movement! Till now I have understood that a major change which happened was because of

the combined incidents of the Industrial Revolution. This propagating the idea of mass

production, leading to development of methodologies by which a large number of products

could be made over a very short period of time. This was made possible also by the

standardization of the set guidelines to making components so that mass production was very

much possible and each component lost its sense of place or its vernacular quality. Thus the

nature and the structure of the of the products were standardized based on its functionality.

Leaving all the additional decoration or you can call it the quality of art in architecture in the

dust. And re-framing the idea of art in architecture to more of a theory, from a pure expression

of skill and craftsmanship; although I do not deny the fact that the former is also another skill.

It is almost like we have forgotten about the “delight” which was the factor which kept driving us

all this while.

I say this because of the fact that we humans have advanced so much as intelligent beings,

one major reason being our instinctive behavior of curiosity. If it wasn’t for curiosity and the

happiness that man initially experienced, Fire wouldn’t have been known to us. Electricity, Our

understandings of the laws of Physics, etc. would never have been possible. So I believe that

delight was maybe the sole reason we have moved forward so much, in terms of everything.

Why do you talk about some triad which existed a long time ago?

I want to talk about the triad because I don’t want anyone to misunderstand what I am working

towards here (In this case - Beauty in Architecture). My Goal is not that. And by talking about

the triad I am trying to communicate to you guys that I believe in the existence of a harmonious

relationship between the three qualities of structure: Form, Function and Beauty; which are the

three basic things that give life to architecture.

Even though we as architects take decisions based on “how we like it to be” aesthetically or

intuitively, although we result in creating good spaces, the immediate external reaction to this

method of creation is not appreciative I feel. And even from our side, It has almost become a

taboo to say that “ I designed it that way because I find it more pleasing”.

There is no ideal, dictatorial beauty in architecture, nor a precise definition of beauty. It is

mostly momentary, unexpected and contradictory.

There are a few practices, where the process of designing still retains the qualities of “delight in

the making”.

One such example of the process is, designing with the body...

What I mean by this is that us relating to things around us with our physical entity. Not

designing spaces based on set dimensions or with set proportions... something which evolves

as we age...

I feel that when we are able to relate architecture to something closest to us or our physical

being - the Body.... the architecture thus created is given the quality to be able to connect with

ourselves and others who use it.

One day, I was just talking to my friend about architects now and then. It was a talk

about how architecture was being made in the past. The process of making. The pleasure in

making architecture in the past. Who were the people who made these buildings? And how were

they known as?

During this conversation, references were drawn from the movie “Pillars of the Earth” In that

movie, there was this Master Builder who led the whole work force. What made them master

builders was that although they supervised all the works they were also skilled at every

craftsmanship. But lets just take a look into reality today, architecture as a profession has

become so fragmented although being called a holistic profession where we need to know

everything. In the past it wasn’t like this, there was no formal profession called architecture. A

good painter could become an architect. A good sculptor could do a great building. Because the

profession to-be (architecture) was a basic understanding of how structures were made. And

every act was an act of delight.

Coming back to today, architects just design… we have become so stubborn in some aspects

that we refuse to know more than what is needed… And this “what is needed” too is defined by

us and not let to the discretion of the project to be decided. Whether the project demands such

an artistic view or a sculptural touch to it, etc. We are happy with what we have and that we say

is just to design. Construction is taken care of by masons… Services by contractors… within that

itself so many contractors come into the picture. The surveying of the land is done by another

third party. We shouldn’t be calling this type of architecture as being a broad field. It’s a narrow

one. We have made it narrow. By ignorance towards workmanships other than design. When all

this other works are handled by people other than the designer himself there already is a loss in

connection between the creator and the creation. There is no intimacy between these two

entities. And as a result the ultimate decision or the ultimate result is not exactly what was

conceived by the designer. And we don’t take any action using this situation as an excuse from

the politics of architecture.

The master builders could take the ultimate decision because they knew all the arts involved in

the process of making architecture. And the skills learnt are not via superficial learning…not like

you go to a workshop for a month and learn the art and come and apply. It’s through what I term

as experiential learning. It is very different from the superficial / intellectual learning – a learning

process which takes into account the culture and the place.

A person of such a skill set is who can be called a master builder according to me as he knows;

understands what he is doing. A person who knows the skill inside out. Let me Re-phrase the

sentences so that I can form a relationship between them.

• He knows the material inside-out

• He and the material are one

• He is connected with the material.

This is the connection that I am talking about. This is what is required of a master builder. This

skill is developed in us because of one universal factor – Time.

Time is what which allows us this connection with anything. Be it our nostalgic hometown, our

language, our nationality, our home, it is always time that decides how connected we are with

anything around us. If we give something more time to spend with then we are not showered

literally with a understanding knowledge about the subject at question… but it gives us the

space to look, observe, listen, and understand it. Therefore allowing more incidents to take

place, more events to happen, more associations to be made, more things to interact with,

more memories to be remembered… All this cannot happen overnight as the world is not our

stage to be choreographed. The first example that strikes my mind when I start talking about

this is the Adyar House where most of our earlier years of architecture school were spent. This

house was not designed by an architect. It was just a couple of rooms where we (my friends

and myself) had spent a hell lot of time in. Now whenever we talk about those days, the

experiences we had in that house would always take its share atop the throne. All those days of

sleepless nights, Ragging by seniors and everything is what recollects. A Memory. A memory

formed by time catalyzed by architecture. So here I dare not say that it is irrespective of the

architecture, as long as you spend a lot of time the place is a great one. It is rather the other

way round. It is architecture which is catalyzing the quality off the memory which is being

formed. So ultimately architecture holds a higher post than time here as the depth and quality

of each memory of a place is inevitably influenced by the architecture around it. The reason of

architecture, glorified by the effects of time.

Say for example, there are 2 people “A” and “B”. Let’s say both of them experience the

Taj Mahal. Let’s say “A” leaves the Taj after an hour. And “B” leaves after 2 days. Don’t you

think “B” will be more connected to the Taj than “A” given that both of them are equally

observant. Although “A” may talk about the entire history of the place and the beauty of its

symmetry, etc; there would be a great difference from what “B” might have seen or observed

through the days. The events of time, the shades of the building under the sun, the shadows,

the heat he felt under his feet when walking around the building at different times of the day,

the noise, the mist settling down behind the Taj. The description is proof enough to show that

time plays an important role in showing the connection between the user and the building.

Another example is a few of us friends. All of us used to talk about college. But there is a

difference between the things that people who stay up in college after college hours and talk

from those who leave home as soon as the college hours are over. These people talk just

about the events which may be coming up and stuff like that. But the people who stay back in

college talk about things beyond these events, etc. Am not talking about which group is good or

bad, am talking about the connection they have towards that space they are spending time in.

So don’t you think we need to spend time in what we feel we need to be connected with…?

So if we are learning / Practicing / making, don’t you think we should spend time in it!

These statements are not with an intention to accuse architects that they are not spending time

in their projects and practice. But in our aim to achieve a good creation of architecture, we are

using excuses such as economy, client’s wants, etc. as an excuse to compromise on the

maybe uncompromised design decision.

Designing and the body - I was just thinking about the practices and their philosophies that they have and was just

wondering why most of them never matched what was actually happening in the studio.

As in, the philosophies were theoretically good, but when it came to their projects and their

practice it was not so.

In today’s practices, most of the architects design with a very conscious intention that it will be

used by people later. But when we design, we design mainly with just our mind. How can the

final product be embodied with such qualities if it is done in this manner? I feel the only way in

which these qualities are embedded in the design with utmost consciousness is by designing

by experience.

My doubt was if you want the body and the senses to experience the space then shouldn’t the

design process also be in a way that you actually use your body to design. The best

proportioning system we have with ourselves. For a body to experience it, the body should

make it. What I mean by this is that us relating to things around us with our physical entity. Not

designing spaces based on set dimensions or with set proportions… something which evolves

as we age…

I feel that when we are able to relate architecture to something so close to us as our physical

entity – the Body… the architecture thus created is given the quality to be able to connect with

ourselves and with others who will use it.

Case Study I found the practice of two people really moving… Bijoy Jain and Peter Zumthor

Bijoy Jain_________

Studio Mumbai – let me start from the very beginning of my experiences here so that we can

understand the studio better…because to understand the studio’s projects you need to

understand the studio first.

The first few conversations I had with the office, about the office was filled with

negative comments. They said there are No work hours – 24x7x365 literally. No national and

religious holidays. From my first day in Studio Mumbai, all I saw was Live scale structures.

Models and mock-ups in 1:1 scale. Models so big you can actually experience it. It was not just

the size of the models which was amazing. It was also the materiality of the models. Concrete

was there where concrete would come, in the actual building. Wood was there where wood

would be in the structure. Even Copper roofs were there. And all this was made with equipment

bought specifically for each material. The models were not done just like that. They were done

how they were supposed to be done in reality. The process of making a building was actually

happening before the actual building was constructed. So parts of the actual building was

constructed, tested in the necessary conditions like how the building would be exposed to and

checked if it works, etc. and is taken to site and kept there as a reference for the actual

construction of the building.

For example, there was this one residence which we did in which, in the first site visit, Bijoy

would just walk around the site. And this footpath is then traced and a line out of this path is

made. It is also taken digitally with the help of google map images and is drawn on that too and

a few sketches are made. In the second site visit, Bijoy had taken with him a group of

carpenters along with a standard sized waste wood as square sections. A screen we call the

agro net which is a net of cotton fiber used for agricultural purposes was also taken with them.

What they did on site was simply did a line out on site based on Bijoy’s sketches of the scheme

and started putting up the wooden poles at every junction and made a framework of the whole

building. And then what they did was they stapled the agro net screens on the wooden frames

wherever there are walls and a roof. And if Bijoy wanted to remove a wall, they would just pull

out the agro net screen and would staple it elsewhere. So actually in a matter of minutes we

constructed walls and roofs on site. And in a day the whole building was there for him to react

to. Things here in Studio Mumbai never worked the way where you make working drawings and

you construct based on that drawing. It’s exactly the opposite. Mockups are made first and then

those mockups are measured and then the drawings are made.

Dimensions were never a standard here. Whenever we needed a dimension for a room or a

space or the ceiling, etc. Bijoy would either stretch out his hands, or point to a distance from A

to B in the studio and immediately we would go with a measuring tape and we would measure

it. Sometimes he would walk around the studio and that path is measured and documented and

is used in the drawing. Even measurements would be taken with an appropriate scale. He

always insists on using tools which are meant to be used for that task and for that scale. If you

are measuring a detail which is quite small you must use a scale which is correct to the scale of

the detail you are going to measure. This was very essential as this was helping us to form a

connection between us, the tool, the object and our surroundings. This is what I mean when I

say “making of architecture” . To give you a situation, I had made a small model of a bookshelf.

The model was made in inches. Once in a discussion with Bijoy, he asked me the dimension of

one side of the shelf. (It was ½” in that scale) I told him that and he disagreed. And he told me

to measure it. I found a small centimeter scale. I measured it. It was 12.2mm and you know by

basic logic that since 1 inch was 25.4mm then I knew it was 12.2mm for 1/2”. I was yelled at

for using a centimeter scale to measure an inch scale model. I then brought an inch scale but

couldn’t find a small inch scale. All I found was a 2’ scale. I got yelled at again for using a 2’

scale to measure a ½” measurement. I then somehow found the 6” scale and I measured it.

And he said,” Know your tools well first and then you can try becoming an architect.” The first

part of the dialogue really struck me hard. Because I was not being thoughtful. Anyway, the

point is that I learnt a good lesson that even the choice of tools is very important to get an

immaculate result.

I feel the connection with architecture as an end product is also affected by the manner in

which we decide to take decisions.

For example – For the Bookshelf project we had made a 1:1 scale mockup of the Bookshelf.

And since it was night time already we had placed some tubelights on both sides of the

bookshelf. We never intended to create a light pattern in the back panel of the mockup. The

intention was to show the mockup in good lighting. But after we set up the lights, Bijoy had

instructed us to cut out doorways in the back panel exactly in the center. After all these days

when I was going through the photographs I saw the image that we had clicked that night

again. Saw the light falling on the back panel because of the openings in the side. Then it

struck me, maybe that’s how Bijoy knew that it would look great with those openings in the

center. But that decision was a result of this type of making a live scale mockup and with colors

done very meticulously. Somehow Bijoy could get an idea of how those openings would react

when light was kept behind the bookshelf. And even for the marble bookshelf the decision he

took for shuffling the marble tiles. We realized only later when we saw the final setup of the

marble bookshelf, what He saw, maybe.

The point is that if the 1:1 scale mockup was not made, the effect and result would

have been understood differently.

Coming back to how I find this connection strong (I am not talking of a comparison here

at all. All that I am interested in is that whether the connection is present or absent) is because

decisions are not made barely on facts read or listened to from reliable sources… Decisions

should be made from direct experiences.

Peter Zumthor_________

Another Practice I find very intriguing is Peter Zumthor’s

Born in Basel, the son of a cabinet-maker, Zumthor trained at a school for applied arts,

modelled on the Bauhaus, before studying industrial design at the Pratt Institute in New York.

He never qualified as an architect (which has since become a point of pride) but returned to

Switzerland to work in conservation for the local department for the preservation of monuments

in the canton of Graubünden, where he still lives today.

It was in this role that he gained a thorough understanding of structure and materials, as well

enjoying the luxury of time to do things properly – the foundation for his slow architecture. “I

tried to find out why things here look the way they do, what makes them beautiful, aesthetic,”

he has said about his job surveying the area’s ancient buildings. “For me as an architect it

turned out to be about overcoming architectural modernism, in which everything had to be new

and nothing was supposed to have history. The Bauhaus seems to me now very limited in that

respect, and this survey work helped me overcome that limitation.”

It is this almost vernacular sensibility, of buildings grown out of their place, as if hewn from the

ground or whittled from the forest, that went on to inform his work in practice, which he

established in 1979 in the village of Haldenstein, near Chur. Here his atelier is split between a

long timber barn and a cloister of concrete and glass, one side of which is his house. Staffed by

devoted acolytes – of such youth that one senior partner jokes it has become “like working in a

nursery” – it has a studious atmosphere, the quiet maintained by the fact that all employees

and visitors must wear slippers.

It is a cultish ambiance that almost tipped beyond parody when Zumthor commissioned a

fashion designer to develop an office uniform, based on his own preference for long, loose-

fitting jackets – green for office work, blue for the workshop. Sadly, they were never formally

used.

But this finely tuned environment serves an important purpose: it is into this carefully

choreographed lair that the architect receives his clients (and journalist promoters of the myth),

cigar in hand, jazz playing in the background, a domain in which he has complete control. He is

famously stubborn about leaving the office, routinely refusing phone interviews and insisting

clients come to him.

“It’s not arrogance, he just likes being at home,” says a former employee, who remembers how

a client had flown from the Middle East to Zurich, but still Zumthor refused to meet him outside

his office. “He has to be in control. And he loves putting on a show.”

His is a rarefied form of practice in which clients are not patrons, nor partners, but vehicles for

him to realise his ideas. “He doesn’t see you as the client,” said Alain de Botton in a recent

interview, describing his own experience having commissioned Zumthor to design a holiday

cottage as part of his Living Architecture project. “He just sees you as someone who is

facilitating the work of art that he wants to make – and then, with any luck, what he wants to

make and what you’ll accept are one. In the same way that a client wouldn’t say to Anselm

Kiefer, ‘Could you make it a bit lighter at the top?’ he’s not looking for you to say you’d like a

different door handle.”

It is a dogmatic stance that has led some to leave this particular project in exasperation –

including the concrete specialist who disagreed with Zumthor’s “dishonest” use of hidden steel

reinforcement in the supposedly load-bearing rammed concrete walls. But “truth to materials”

has never been the Zumthor’s strong point. The thin layers of locally quarried quartzite at his

seminal thermal baths in Vals, designed as an assembly of great masonry cubes, are but a

decorative cladding to reinforced concrete walls behind.

And this should come as no surprise: his work is entirely about the sensation of the interior, the

orchestration of light and sound, touch and smell. It is a sensory, micro-scaled endeavor that

has led some detractors to say he is “not an architect, but a furniture designer”. This may be

true, in which case perhaps it would be helpful for more architects to study furniture before

going into building.

For, although Zumthor’s work can be suffocating and more than a little creepy at times, it

demonstrates a mastery of material and attention to experience that is severely lacking from

much contemporary architecture, in which exterior image rules all. His is certainly not a

transferable model for practice, but he is an important reminder for why it can be useful to slow

down and look a bit more closely. And that you don’t always have to answer the phone.

Questions still lingering in me… But why is it that we have forgotten the importance that delight played in our creations?

Forgotten or the importance decreased?

This made me wonder if we even consider beauty in architecture important?

And do architects like Beauty?

Before modernism, architects were just decorators.

Looking at Architectural practices like this triggers these questions inside me which I feel a dire

need for an answer so that I can understand where these practices would lead us tomorrow.

Is being called a romantic in today’s world appreciative or not?

Isn’t it so that if a man is romantic, he is more personally attached to the subject?

What is Beauty in today’s architectural world?

Is it may be just the measure of depth to which a work can resolve contradictions?!

So is it such that the more problems, both functional and logical, architecture can solve, the

more beautiful it is?!

Is this all that we need in this world with a majority of work talking about form chasing function.

Regarding solving problems in architecture, We are now moving into a world where we have

devised a way to solve these issues by the process of parametricism.

Is it useful for us to be romantic in a world where algorithms decide how we arrive at a

solution?!

If it is important, is there a way to be romantic using these new found techniques of design? Is

that how we will have to result in architectural beauty? Not yet maybe.

I am not interested in bringing back the process in which people brought about beautiful

architecture but I am interested in figuring out if there is a way in which the experience of THE

process can be infused into new processes relevant to the time.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/architecture-design-blog/2013/feb/05/peter-zumthor-

riba-gold-medal

http://magazynaha.blogspot.in/2012_06_01_archive.html

http://wikipedia.qwika.com/fr2en/Architecture