Why 'SALT'

The metaphor salt is to indicate the thought of THEORY for architecture. Salt as an ingredient cannot be directly consumed, but without it, the recipe remains tasteless. The same idea applies to architectural theories. Here, the intention is to create a platform where various architectural theories and theorists can be discussed, reviewed, and further dissected to apply it in the tangible world. A theory for architecture remains in the intangible ways, if not applied, but that does not mean that every theory has a direct application. The point here is that an architectural theory most of the times acts as this ingredient ‘salt’ and we cannot expect it to be in direct conversation with the idea of built-forms, but definitely can be added in the right proportion to shape an idea to a thought, which in turn is subjected to changes and finally ‘the end product’.
Hence the name ‘SALT’
We welcome you all to contribute, and to make this a more tasteful recipe.

Please feel free to mail your essays to publish on this blog and keep commenting (your name with comments will be highly appreciated).


Contact email

Tushar gaur: ar.tushar@gmail.com
Shoonya: shoonyar@gmail.com

Wednesday, March 10, 2010

Built Intervention in Historic Core.*

Introduction

“Tradition by no means consists merely of following, it is a matter of much wider significance. It can not be inherited and if you want it, you must obtain it by great labour. It involves in the first place the historical sense, nearly indispensable to anyone who would continue to be a poet beyond his twenty-fifth year; and the historical sense involves perception, not only of the pastness of the past, but of its presence.” - T.S.Eliot

From ages, architects, painters, musicians, poets and designers, had zeal to un-belong. This zeal, many times in the history confronted the idea of non historical creations so was the idea of modernism. The great masters of ‘Modernism’ were sensitive about the buildings and expressions they generated but mass cheap-imitations put question marks on the Soule of thought. Inappropriateness of ‘Modernism’ in historical cores is much higher in countries like India where place making is synonymous to celebration of spaces. These celebrations serve as translator of meaning underlying a larger configuration and relate to the significance of the place wherein they are staged. Today, almost all Indian historic cities need urban regeneration as ‘Modern’ movement in heritage has ruptured the historical tissues drastically and feel of spaces in city cores in turn the celebration of those spaces.

For effective urban regeneration we must be sensitive about new buildings being erected in cores. These new built forms act as glue to the fabric and behave as the channel for flow of spaces and if not designed properly these new installations can counter the effect of the whole regeneration programme. This essay is an attempt to understand the sensitivity required for inserting new built form in historic city core. Here this essay focuses manly in few theoretical constructs on this debate. Here essay will analyse ‘Modernism’, as this was the period which marked the remarkable transformation of urban tissues and tries to cover need, rise and fall of modernism. A small emphasis on agenda of postmodernism with attitude of critical regionalism will try to conclude these theories.


Need of ‘Modernism’

Architecture of any time reflects its time, place, culture, social, political, organization system and technology. 19th Century witnessed changes which transformed almost all known dimensions and perimeters of all above factors. Hence there was a need of new expression of technology culture and organization system. The need for development of ‘Modernism’ can be understood by three important factors which are

1. Cultural Transformations: ‘Modernism’ was reaction to styles of architecture or phases, rejecting the past and ‘architecture of exclusion’ which resulted in simplification of form and elimination of ornaments. It was Architecture that expressed the spirit of a new age and would surpass the styles, materials, and technologies of earlier architecture. It embarked the avant-grade with the production of architecture and urban spaces having their own expression and critical esteem.

2. Territorial Transformations: The Industrial Revolution was responsible for large-scale changes in patterns of living and working and for the rapid growth of cities. Population concentrations created demand for new roads, railroads, bridges, and subways, and for a wide range of new buildings. Two world wars added to the need of the fast development by mass destruction.

3. Technical Transformations: Availability of new building material such as iron, steel, concrete and glass drove the invention of new building techniques. This advancement in building materials resulted change in approach of architects which was much more engineered and technical in nature.

Rise and fall of ‘Modernism’

‘Modernism’ had emphasis on volume, not mass; on regularity, not symmetry; on proportions and sleek, technical perfection rather than ornament; and a preference for elegant materials. Universal civilization projected whole world on one stage and modern buildings cited no context consideration. This broke barriers for spread of any architectural style in confined area hence termed International Style. Modern architects abandoned historical references, only few used careful references of the past to enhance the modernity. Print and e-media played its role in projecting the idea of un-belonging and united the world’s rebellion architects under one title called modernists.

‘Architecture of exclusion’ resulted in unornamented building boxes. The expressions of buildings were boxed, suitability of the building form and expressions of the spaces were soulless. Churches were boxes, institutions were boxes, offices were boxes, housings were boxes, and public buildings were boxes so were private buildings. No-historical references in buildings caused in lack of historical knowledge in new age architects. Architectural history lost its significance in architecture education and so the basics behind this mutiny against the classical architecture started failing. ‘Modernism’ stagnated in the time frame of its initial years and failed to develop chronologically. The situation was much more poignant for the countries which had strong culture and rooted system of living. These questions were posed by the postmodernism and challenged long-held modernist principles.

“To be modern is not a fashion, it is a state; It is necessary to understand history, & he who understands history knows how to find continuity between that which was, that which is & that which will be : Le Corbusier

Postmodernism

Architecture should be guided ‘not by habit’ but by conscious sense of the past- precedent, thoughtfully considered : Robet Venturi (Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture)

‘Postmodernism’ questioned expressionless, soulless architecture of ‘Modernism’ and advocates the diverse aesthetics. The architects who led the movement boldly used the historical references in architecture and argued that modernist aesthetic was stifling to creativity, disliked by the masses, and uninteresting to design. ‘Postmodernism’ is ‘architecture of inclusion’, tries to refer elements from history, context, climate and responds to site conditions.

Critical Regionalism

It involves basically resolving the debate between impersonal international standardized architecture, and localized vernacular architecture. But then are the two tendencies really antithetical?....... it is possible to arrive at the vision of a same architecture which will be neither old nor new but simply true....” Piacentini, Marcello,1922.

The approach of architecture that strives to counter the placelessness and lack of meaning in ‘Modern Architecture’ by using contextual forces to give a sense of place and meaning is Critical regionalism. Critical Regionalism is an attitude of cross fertilization & reinterpretation of the local and regional features with universal civilization. It is a fact that every culture cannot sustain and absorb the shock of modern civilization. There is a paradox how to become modern and to return to sources; how to revive an old, dormant civilization and take part in universal civilization. The fundamental strategy of Critical Regionalism is to mediate the impact of universal civilization with elements derived indirectly from the peculiarities of a particular place. It is clear from the above that Critical Regionalism depends upon maintaining a high level of critical self-consciousness. It may find its governing inspiration in such things as the range and quality of the local light, or in a tectonic derived from a peculiar structural mode, or in the topography of a given site.

Critical Regionalism advocates:

· Criticism of modernism and at the same time distances from native utopianism.
· Consciously bound architecture and emphasizes on place form and physical impact territory established by building.
· Architecture’s tectonic nature.
· Responding to topography, local materials, light, shade quality and responds to specific conditions.
· Emphasis on feelings of the spaces, sensitization of heat and cold, degree of illuminations, humidity, air movement, volume and material sensations.
· Reinterpretation of the local and vernacular elements and to cultivate innovation in a contemporary place oriented culture and traditions.
· Flourishing those cultural interstices which in one way or other are able to escape the optimizing thrust of universal civilizations.


Conclusion:

The architecture of a city narrates its very evolution and the various phases of the development it faced and experiencing. The ultra modern builds might act as a medium for a city to showcase all its achievements but they certainly fall short in giving the city a character. This phenomenon becomes more important in case of places which inherit timelessness in their character and generating built form in harmonic manner which responds to context, needs addressing of large no of issues. I would like to conclude by Emphasizing that the objective of understanding of the historical process is not to recreate the architectural style and patterns of past. We can develop much better approaches to respond local issues sympathetically by rediscovering design process of unifying traditional architecture. By unifying I do not mean that buildings would be similar in appearance but should follow morphological development of the place and form making with the emerging thought of the time.

*This essay was written for paper presentation in COGNIZANCE-2008(Annual technical fest of IIT Roorkee) under the title “Inserting Builtform in a Historic Urban Fabric”. Some part of the essay has been removed and edited from the original text to make this essay concise and clear.

References:
1. "New Architecture & Urbanism: Development of Indian Traditions" paper titled ‘Introduction : Why Traditions Matters’ by Menon.A.G.K
2. Towards A Critical Regionalism 6 Points For An Architcture of Resistence : Frampton Kenneth
3. Critical History of Modern Architecture : Frampton, Kenneth
4. Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture: Venturi, Robert
5. Celebration of place: Processional rituals and urban form, MS Thesis by Aarati K. Kanekar (Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
6. Critical Regionalism: Architecture of its ‘time and place’ Thesis by Jigar Patel (School of Architecture, Centre of Environmental Planning and Technology, CEPT)
7. Universal civilization and National Cultures (1961 ): Paul Ricoeur
8. Towards the Authentic Regionalism: Wiillam curtis Mimar20: April-June 1986.
9. www.wikipedia.com
10. www.encarta.msn.com
11. Imageof Seagram Building is takes from
http://media.marketwire.com/attachments/200808/MOD-461093_SeagramBldg.MMiP28-08.jpg

Tuesday, March 2, 2010

Theory of 'Theories'

What is theory?

Theory is a body of ideas principles and techniques that applies to a particular subject or in more abstract way its speculation or propositions based on a set of facts or principles analyzed in their relation to one another to explain any phenomenon. 1



I believe that theory is a mental construct to explain any physical/meta-physical phenomenon. Theories try to decode basics of any complex phenomenon based on functions which results in that particular phenomenon. These theories are outcome of observation and patterns study and lie in repetition of events. I believe this relation is origin of certain framework and point of view that is why we have various theories explaining the same phenomenon. Existence of various theories for same phenomenon explains importance of various parallel forces and processes which result in that event.

There are various existing propositions on theories but I am trying to propose a ‘theory of theories’ based on my observation and understanding (subjected to change with time).

Need of theory?

Since the evolution of mankind till today man is surrounded by big and monstrous ‘Why’. Think of first day of man on earth, he would have felt like an alien in this world where everything was unknown and strange including ‘he’ himself. He might have tried to understand ‘why’s’ in terms of evident patterns of seasons and crops or day and night (may be understanding of day and night may be one of first theories of mankind). Here came need to categorize various patterns or phenomenon in sets. One can relate to various why’s, only when there is a categorization possible of these otherwise very complex phenomenon of life and world. So this desire of simplification is process of theorizing. In this process one tries to understand the sequences of relation between various functions and develops a common thread according to which the processes operate, this provides a general understanding of complete set. This generalization helps us understand complex world in simple sets. This categorization can be done on various grounds to achieve various understanding of same phenomenon.
The understanding which one derives from theory helps us to conceive the relations and functions necessary to repeat same event in future. Art and architectural theoretical construct works majorly on this process of inquiry.

Types of theories:

I am proposing a construct for understanding various theories according to time scale. I think there are three kind of major theoretical constructs which are:

-Theory of timeless processes
-Theory of past to present
-Theory of future


Theory of timeless processes:I believe this is first construct which was developed by man and basically covers realm of philosophy and science. These theories try to deal with ‘why’s’ which are unaffected by the time like beauty, truth, gravity, light etc. This process of theorizing tries to understand the world in both physical and meta-physical formats. Experimentation and observation are basic tools for this kind of theoretical construct. Here one tries to explore reason based on experimented facts and explains these timeless process based on this knowledge. One of the most popular examples is ‘shape of earth’ which was flat before Galileo’s theory. The basic queries of this category are more or less timeless in nature but tools of exploration and experimentation change with time which results in different outcomes for same queries. So in this category we can trace the development of our knowledge and change of the views with time.

Theory of past to present : This can be seen as a act of Historiography and desire to set up a construct which links all selected facts which are channelized through a certain framework concentrating on certain aspect (like social, economic, architecture or so on) to achieve certain end result. Now, this according to me is a structuralist approach to past and here we like to stitch facts to fit in certain structure to produce a result which is our present or known to us. This is similar kind of situation which one faces in proving mathematical equations, where one knows what is given and what is to be proved. In this methods one starts to think a method by which we can attain certain result. This decides the course of his selection of formulas which will be used proving certain equation. This process of theorizing seems promising but missies some parallel line of enquiries and concentrate on only those events, facts and situations which resulted in happening of certain event in history. This format of theorizing tries to explain ‘why’ of certain act in history and linking its reason to result.

Theory of Future: I consider this as a visionary’s speculation of present or parallels (here, by parallels I mean, weaving of situation to stage event in a parallel time frame). In this process one takes the ground of the existing or known situations and projects a relation on any mathematical or hypothetical construct of reasoning to set stage for new desired situation. Some theories on based on real ground situations which are tested by time for their authenticity. These grounds can be same as existing or in some relation to theses known situation. Theories of utopia, dystopia, philosophical & critical thinking for future and parallel visions lie in this category. For example George Orwell’s famous novel Nineteen Eighty Four (1984).

Crisis of Theory:

Theory studies the common aspects to weave all subjects in single string. This provides a generalization through exclusive study and one gets rid of all the articulation and complexity. This gives us an idea about the relation between elements but all the beauty of individuality is washed off. By theorizing one relates to common aspect but at the same time miss out the exception and differences. As per my understanding every theory should be studies with ‘anti-theory’ which can deconstruct the focus framed by theory and provides one a real understanding of the facts rather than a mental construct of understanding.

References:
1 as per Encarta dictionary.
image used above is from following link