Monuments & the Vernacular

With a group of students, I visited Ahmadabad in the last week, and was in the celebrated Mill Owners association building again after a gap of about 22 years. I had been to Ahmadabad in 1987, along with a group of Aurangabad architects, and I remember visiting most of the notable buildings in the city, debating all the while the merits & demerits of architectural form and spaces and thematic issues in architecture.

Le Corbusier's work in India had always been a subject of debate amongst us, and the consensus was that he provided modern India with a series of new monuments, paving the way for a new understanding of architectural design. But when I was in the premises again, I could spell out the distinct influence of the vernacular more than that of the monuments in this project.

When discussing the aspects of a 'Monuments' with the students, I used to list the physical characteristics of the Monuments as setting, elevation, scale, symmetry, use of durable materials, cutting edge technology (relevant to the time period) & ornamentation based on the cultural background. The quality of space in and around the monument is the total effect of all these factors.

It was easy to discern most of these factors in the Mill Owners Association building, as the building is set off at a good distance away from the main access, the entrance is directly on the first floor, approached through a large ramp, exposed concrete is used (conceived as the most durable material at the time), and if you can call huge cantilevers & curved roofs in concrete as cutting edge technology of the time, it is all there, striking you as the main feature of the built form.

Ornamentation is conspicuously missing, but that goes with the philosophy of modern architecture as postulated from Adolf Loos to Walter Gropius, and you would not expect it anyway. What you find instead is the conversion of the mundane elements like the hand rail of the ramp converted into an art object, and the security window at first floor has a cantilevered concrete slab projection like a stone block projecting out in a temple.

All these elements notwithstanding, what strikes you primarily is the complete absense of walls on both the front and rear ends of the building, with a series of huge fins in the front and a series of cantilevered slabs in the rear to demarkate the edge of the building. In the rear, this is enhanced by a small gap between the edge of the building and the huge projecting chajjas.

It is my considered opinion that most of the foreign architets who worked in India, had complete understanding of the climatic issues in architectural design, and tried to make their designs compatible to the Indian climate, unlike the irresponsible indian architects who copied the glass-box-form of popular european & american architecture without bothering about the climatic differences.

In the Mill Owners Association building, therefore, what you see is the reflection of the indian vernacular, which is basically a minimal shelter, with proper protection from sun, and a provision of walls where strictly required. The climate is user friendly and you can enjoy the breeze, you need not enclose the building at all. The building has a view of Sabarmati river in the rear side, and all that you need is just an opening to enjoy the view. A small informal space is provided here like a platform around a tree, and you do not need any other piece of furniture.

In the lobbies too, the seats are made from concrete, and are as stark as the temple platforms, the only possible diference is the ornamentation. All this is a direct reflection of the minimalist approach of the indian vernacular. The ambience is that of a place of contemplation, a simple, uncluttered space, very much like the traditional house Gandhiji lived in on the banks of Sabarmati. Whether Corbusier did this deliberately or was influenced by the european minimalist tradition is a debatable issue.

After the visit I went to meet Mr. Abhinav Shukla, Secretary General of the Mill Owners Association, to convey my thanks for allowing us to visit the building & the premises without a prior appointment. He is a good natured person and insisted that we write our comments in the visitors book about the building and its future. I promised him I would write a blog instead, and kept wondering about the expectations of the present ruling elite & the image of Corbusier's building. The current image of Ahmadabad is a direct reflection of the aspirations of the elite class with McDonald outlets, Malls & Multiplexes with a large glass & aluminium expanse-a typical indian version of an american downtown area.

All this is in direct contrast to the stark character of Corbusier's building which is more in line with Gandhiji's philosophy of simple living. Gandhiji put a concept of trustee-ship, wherein the Owners of the Mills would be acting as trustees of public money and are expected to live a spartan life and lead the society by their own example.

We have come a long way from the spirit of the Gandhian philosophy, and all that Corbusier's design stands for is a part of history we may not like to remember now. I would not be surprised if there is a demand in future for pulling down the building in favour of a fully air-conditioned glass-enclosed skyscraper, with plush interiors (with so called cutting edge design). But we need to conserve this building in its present state as a monument to the Gandhian philosophy, to retain some sense of purpose in this globalised maddening world of today.

Monuments

It was Ajay Kulkarni, a talented young architect and an old friend from Aurangabad, who opened up the issue of connection between history and present day architecture with his presentation at the National Convention of the Indian Institute of Architects. This was held at Nagpur on 6th November 2009, and about 800 architects from all over India attended. On this count alone this was a successful event indeed.

Ajay started his presentation with a review of the historical monuments, and a funny thing happened. Ajay is passionate about everything he does, and his voice may have been raised a bit above the ordinary at some point. A delegate, who was dozing comfortably in the air-conditioned auditorium, suddenly woke up with this, and found himself listening to a history lecture which he resented and registered his protest.

Of course there were many in the auditorium who were impressed with Ajay's oratory and content, and tried to hush down the protester. Ajay is also a good natured person and nonchalant, and continued with his presentation. His work is outstanding, and that naturally commands respect, irrespective of whether you do or do not like the history behind the design.

What Ajay did, in effect, was to explain the process behind his design. Very few architects are capable of doing this, in fact most of the other architects who presented their projects in the same convention were content in describing their work (and showing plenty of visuals), but did not give any reasons about why it was designed that way. May be they thought it was obvious, but it takes a lot of understanding of history to articulate and present the entire process of design.

That brings back the issue of how history is taught and learnt at the schools of architecture. Unless we are able to establish its link to the present day architecture, history would become a tiresome subject indeed. It would then be a boring list of monuments and the kings who made them (with a bit of religious, political and such other background thrown in). No wonder people resent this, and many generations of students have crossed over to the fourth year architecture with a sigh of relief that they no longer have anything to do with history.

What Ajay was talking about is the history as it exists today for us, and the impressions of form and the quality of architectural spaces the monuments have created. We grow up with this backdrop of history surrounding us all over (particularly in India), and it is part of our subconscious. The monuments speak to us (to use the jargon from Ajay's speech), and if you are sensitive enough, you may be able to decipher the language.

Ancients were definitely more serious about architecture, and went about the business of construction of every monument as if it was the last piece of work they would produce in their lifetime. Architecture is always a culmination of all that you are capable of creating - it is not something that you do casually. All architecture is deliberate - with a sense of purpose.

So when Ajay talked about creating a monument for a freedom fighter-it was not words alone, but a whole imagery of how that person lived and worked, his value system and the force behind his acts of patriotism - and how do we interpret all this in the present context becomes the starting point of architectural design. So the attire of the freedom fighter becomes a symbol that can be carried on to the building designed for him and to establish the act of patriotism as a monumental act, it needs to be represented by a monumental structure.

So it is not the historical monuments per se but their interpretation in the present day, which becomes the issue for architectural design. And this is definitely depends on your understanding of history - not as counts of stone or technology but as reminders of the quality of design and architectural space. It is this lesson of history that we need to present as teachers.

Birth of a style-02

Coming back to the birth of a style, it is not the technology or the religious background or any such factors that generate a new style. They are important, no doubt, but as facilitators-the background needed for a style to be created & sustained. But what creates a new style is an idea-imagination of a creative genius-which may get converted into a poem, a piece of literature, and thence into a painting or sculpture or architecture.


The Gothic Cathedral came into existence as an extension of belief in the greatness of the Church as the house of God. It was not an architect, but a Bishop, who came up with the idea of a church with huge interior space full of light-and the Gothic architecture followed this thread of imagination.


Hence, it is not the pointed arch which made Gothic Architecture-it so happened that the pointed arch-with its vertical character-was found most suitable for creating the effect of a huge interior space with its three storeyed nave-without enlarging the actual area of the Church.


Secondly, to make the Church full of light, the window area had to be enlarged. The flying buttresses came in useful to transfer the load of the roof directly to ground. Already in the Romanesque style the rib & panel construction of roof had separated the frame & the panel. The Gothic Architects extended this principle to the walls. The columns (like the ribs in the roof) could stand independently and did not need a wall for support. And thus the walls absolved of their role of supporting the structure could be made of glass-fulfilling the design objective of a large transparent surface to fill the interior with light.


But interestingly enough, the walls of Gothic Cathedral did not give a view to the outside. They contained large stained glass portraits which provided a mosaic of coloured light in the interior-illuminating & mystifying it at the same time. As a third world architect, I look on this as a generic issue, related to the harsh, cold climate of the place, where for six months in a year(because of the snow), there is nothing to look at through the window. But it may also have been done with a purpose.


In the tropical places of worship you try to shun the harsh outdoor light & heat by closing the temple with thick walls & thick roof, allowing very little light in the interior which is both very dark & cool. Once in the interior of the temple, you are physically comfortable, but have no view of the outside-making for better concentration on the worship of the deity. And in case of Mosques-though there is no deity-the exterior is closed for view and inside of the mosque all that you see is the Quibla and the other worshippers.


It is very important for a place of worship to create a feeling of secluded space. This can not be achieved if the light and view is available at the human height-upto 2.00 m. from floor level. The highly acclaimed 'Lotus Temple' in New Delhi fails exactly on this count-you can not concentrate in the interior hall because of all the light coming in at low level.


The best source of light in a place like this is above the human eye level of 1.50 M. But if you place the source of light much higher-eliminating the view of the outside except the sky-as would happen in a Mosque-you obtain the best of the result architecturally speaking.


The Gothic stained glass windows serve this purpose beautifully. And moreover, the paintings deal in religious subject-emphasising the religious connotation of the place. It is exactly for this reason that the temples are full of sculptures and Mosques with all the writings from religious texts. Once inside-the interior seeks to enhance the effect of the place.


I used to wonder why the great painters of the day like Michelangelo would spent their efforts in painting the ceilings when it is well nigh impossible to think that people in a Church would have to bend their heads to look at them-not a very comfortable position to admire a painting. It may have been also due to lack of a clean vertical background in a colonnaded place, but I prefer to think that it is an extension of the thought process detailed above. Once inside a Church, everywhere you can see-all that you see is a religious text or painting. So you may or may not be looking directly at any specific painting-but you know instinctively that they have a religious theme.

The thought process thus precedes any new style in architecture. And even in the middle ages-where new thoughts (outside the official religious beliefs) were virtually banned, even within the limited scope of thinking, it is the creative thoughts which led to the birth of a new style.

Effect of Politics on Architecture

One of my students, Amit Tandon, has selected this topic for his dissertation and has asked for my comments on the topic. In one way, politics influences everything that happens in a society, and architecture is essentially a political activity. This could well be the subject of an entire book.

When discussing the birth of a style, I had said that architecture is a deliberate act and can not emerge out of circumstantial factors alone. It is true that the form & extent of architecture depends on factors like resources & technology, but architecture can not happen unless somebody is willing to pay for it, and thus right from the beginning of the human civilisation architecture has always depended on the vision of its patrons.

And we need not go back to the construction of pyramids to prove this. Take the case of Bauhaus. It was founded in 1919 by Walter Gropius with the idea of synthesising all creative arts including architecture. The idea was to create art which could be mass-produced, to bring it within reach of the common man. It celebrated this emanicipation of mankind, made possible by the mass production of the industrial age. It tried to steer away from the neo-classical art forms and tried to create a new vocabulary of aesthetics. To the uninitiated the Bauhaus buildings now look as simple rectangular blocks, but they herald a revolution in architecture.

At about the same time, thousands of miles away, in Russia, a similar revolution in architecture was happening. The architects of post-revolution Russian state wanted to break away from the tradition of Tsarist past with its feudal connotations. Tsarist architecture of Russia borrowed heavily from the european renaissance, trying to match its grandeur, scale, use of rich materials and craftsmanship, signifying architecture for the king in which the common man had no place.

Thus 'Constructivism' movement owes its origin to the idea, that in the post revolutionary Russia, architecture was meant to be for the common people, and was picturised as a simple straightforward & honest in its expression. The idea thus was to portray the form defined only by the construction technology, without any embellishment, and use of the modern materials & technology like concrete, steel & glass in place of the classical stone walls & the ornamentation. It is worthwhile to remember here that the final outcome of architectural form is heavily dependant on the materials & method of construction. Once you replace the stone wall with a steel frame and glass, you end up with a form that has no connection with the historical precedents. (It is true that this is a matter of choice, as you may as well copy the classical features in a new materials, but that would go against the principle of honesty).

Looking back after about 100 years now, we can see that modern architecture has acquired many of its attributes from these movements, but political leaders in both the countries thought this kind of architecture unacceptable (to put it mildly) and put a stop to it. Both the movements died because the patrons rejected the idea.

Hitler had come to power in Germany, riding on the wave of German nationalism, and he & his henchmen found nothing that belonged to Germany in Bauhaus. The architeture of Bauhaus was devoid of any symbolism that connected it to the German spirit as seen by Hitler and his dream of the Third reich. Bauhaus architecture was branded as a communist plot to demean the cultural tradition of Germany, and the school had to close down.

When Hitler made plans to rebuild Germany, he brought in Albert Speer, who designed buildings in the neo-classical tradition of renaissance. Chauvanism had won the day.

On this background it would seem strange that constructivism would be disliked in Russia. After all, Russian revolution stood against the Tsarist tradition & values. But here too, when Stalin came to power, a renovation of the Russian tradition was sought. Dictators all over the world relish the pomp & ceremony and the renaissance palaces with their large plazas & towering structures with ornmentation appealed more to Stalin than the simplistic constructivist architecturre, which was viewed as a fascist plot to subvert the communist revolution & its ideals.

Which proves that all dictators think alike, whatever the colour of their politics. Architecture emerges as the collective will of the people but this is determined by those actually weilding the power on behalf of the people. To people in general & to the so called representatives of the people (who are the de-facto dictators of today) it is the symbolism that decides the issue, not the functional aspects which is an unfortunate but true state of affairs in public architecture of today.

Freedom of expression

In conservation studies, I came across the criticism that the present day architecture in Historic cities of India, does not respect the historical context. The idea seems to be that the historic setting is sacred, and whatever architecture that follows should be in confirmity with what has already happened.

This may seem a bit too tall an order-

Birth of a style

How do we explain a style in architecture? As a student, I was asked to refer to the History of Architecture by Sir Banister Fletcher. I remember the first glimpse of the great treatise -the tome even in its early editions looked formidable, and (as I later found out) it is indeed a great book of reference for history.

The history as presented in the book is quite systematic-every chapter begins with an introduction to the style, its architectural character, religious & political background, influences of climate and culture, resources available & so on.

All this, however, does not explain the nature of architecture that actually emerged. Take for example, the pointed arch. This arch form was known for quite some time, even during the Romanesque period, but most of the churches in this period did use only the semi-circular arch. Why then, we do not see any Romanesque building with pointed arches?

There is more to the matter than the explanation regarding climate, resources and the development of technology at that time would provide. These factors do exist in giving the final shape to any architecture, but the actual design is a conscious matter of choice. All architecture is deliberate.

Take the matter of technology first. The Romans had perfected the barrel vault but it was a bulky affair, and in a span of a thousand years somebody was bound to come up with the idea of ribs & panels, which was a great technological innovation. But it does speak a lot of the intellectual capacity of the one who thought about it- this is not something that the Church could order. The nature of innovation also suggests that it was a freemason who would put his efforts and simplyfy the construction - the architectural character of the building does not change, whether you have a cross barrel vault or a rib & panel construction.

The second aspect of the matter is the development of geometry. All the construction in middle ages was (using the current nomenclature) pre-fabricated. Each & every stone to be used in construction had to be dressed on the ground and then placed in position. This meant, that you must be able to do complete shop drawings, using the knowledge of geometry that you had, and then only you would be able to do the job right. No wonder the free masons were considered as exalted professionals-with knowledge of both geometry & construction.

The complexity of the Romanesque construction, even with the simple semi-circular arch is astonishing. The problem of the higher diagonal rib was solved by various guilds in their own ways, and provided a regional distinction. This would mean that after a certain detail was improvised & mastered-the entire region would follow the practice.

There is also the matter of the plan of the Church proper. Converting the plan to a latin cross was not a functional issue-it was more a symbolic gesture. That in fact would explain why there are many examples of later period where the plan is not a cross. So also is the issue of cardinal directions. It can be shown that symbolism of this kind has been tramnsferred across religion.

The matter of style thus is a complex affair-more about this in the next blog

Introduction

As a subject in architectural schools, I am aware that history ranks somewhere below the theory of structures in popularity, and considered the dullest of the subjects ever, dealing with things from the dead past.

Twenty-five years ago, when I started teaching history as a subject in architecture, the first question I had in mind was not how it should be taught but why it should be taught at all - what is its relevance to the present day architectural education?

I think I can answer that question now. I have since realised that we need to study history to make sense of what we are today. The concept of space & space-making, the behavioral patterns, impressions people have about scale, grandeur and perception of built form - all these have been shaped by history and have a direct bearing on the architectural design of the present.

But by far the most important aspect of history is the responses to the issues to ecology, sustainability in the architecture of the past and the reverence shown towards the gifts of the nature by all the ancient civilizations of the world.

With this understanding of the reason of teaching or learning history, it can indeed be made a very interesting & highly relevant subject in architecture, and this, indeed is the reason for this blog in the first place.