Indian aesthetics can be like a plain glass of water. But being plain does not mean mediocre. Sabu Francis explains why ...

What should be the looks of a building? It sounds strange that we should ask this question more often than many others. I wonder why we do not ask questions like: what is the sound of the building? or what is the smell of the building or whatever else question that may pertain to our other senses. Actually, the word aesthetics has more meanings other than just the one leading to looks, but the typical isms and stereotypes that we seem to be caught in, has goaded us to accept such a mundane definition. And so be it, for the purpose of this article.

Before the eighties, we had much visually boring architecture in and around our cities. I am not talking about those specific examples of architecture by enlightened architects who took a distinct stand and veered away from the ordinary. I am, instead talking about the large majority of architecture as it happened. We cannot escape from that, can we? I am not embarassed by it. No one can be embarassed by History and we must study it head on.

So there you are, we were merrily ticking along with no particular comment on what architecture should be and here comes Hafeez Contractor into the scene, and suddenly there were two groups of architects: One who criticized him and derided the so called superficial post-modernist looks and the other who also criticized him, but secretly admired his impact on the urban landscape and copied his visual styles. (Actually, he was simply superficially imitating the looks from the works of Ricardo Boffil and others, and he was fortunate enough to be used as a cog in the wheel of the re-rolling process of black money in the construction industry. But that is a story waiting to be told somewhere else)

The truth of the matter is that no one has been able to pin-point what exactly is it which Hafeez and his chums are doing wrong. Indian architects attempting to establish their own approaches to architecture are quite confused because nobody had been able to exactly establish why pastiche-post-modernism is wrong. Every why could be countered by a why-not. In this article I am trying to establish some the context in which Indian aesthetics is couched. I feel that these points simply cannot be ignored

An Aesthetic statement cannot come by shooting from the hip

How do we then manage to make some comment on aesthetics? I have found that most approaches are strongly influenced by temporal factors. The immediate context in which a judgement is made makes a profound impact on how we differentiate between the good and bad in aesthetics. It is evident in every college where groups are formed not because of some basic overriding principles that went far into time, but simply because each group had a different social context. Thus you had the urbanite crowd who wore stone washed jeans and listened to a particular kind of music (Pink Floyd?) and then you had the hinglish crowd who hummed the latest Rehman song...and so on. The responsible act of practicing architecture, unfortunately, is often influenced by such adolescent sensibilities.

The fact that today's ishstyle that we have of Jeans and slightly ruffled hair gives a clue to the bearer on how to react to the architecture around. He or she does not pause to think that tomorrow when Kurta and pyjama (or whatever) come into vogue; will his/her reaction still remain the same? Sadly, this way of concluding about aesthetics in architecture has invaded formal forums too. Recently, I attended a ceremony to facilitate some award winning architects, and the only distinct explanation that the architect had was that he recognized an alchemy of shapes in the elevation of his award-winning project.

No particular statement is also a statement

I think we should bring ourselves to respect the holistic manner with which laymen approach architecture. Architecture should be like a nice glass of water. Not acidic, not alkaline, not colored, but very important nevertheless to quench one's thirst. It should be something that is so near to us and understands us so deeply so that it can be taken for granted; just the way we would take our beloved for granted. We all know the role of water in the survival of life. Is it really serendipitious that the aesthetics of water is the way it is? Can we think of life if water had a tinge of color in it and had an identifiable taste to it?

Architecture is more often than not begging to be taken for granted by the users. It is only architects who want to crack a whip at their reluctant creations and make them do embarassing tricks to all the passers-by just to grab at that fleeting thing called fame.

Rarely though, architecture could play a ritual role in society: Just like water could be uplifted from its commonplace definition to one with deep symbolic meanings during religious and other social ceremonies. It is only for such architectural experiences, that I would concede that the looks of a building should be dwelled upon seriously.

Specifically, Indian Architecture should bring back the zero; that eternal concept that is at the seed of every step in humankind's progress. Let the future generations of architects in India wiggle their way out of this zero, and slowly establish a visually identifiable style of architecture for our country. As of today, India is just 50 years old - a small (even if fast growing) infant who is most comfortable in his/her birthday clothes.

Bottom-up is as important as top-down

Architects tend to look at their projects as 'Gods' in more ways than one. Many of our aesthetic approaches are dicatated by the fact that we are forced to visualize the entirety of the image of the buildings we design. This is a subtle but important point in dictating the aesthetic approaches in our project. In many of our projects, the sheer magnitude forces us to think in a consistent terms. We feel that all the nooks and corners of our project should speak to one aesthetic style. We do not get suspicious of the fact that it also fits in rather neatly with our top-down approach to design.

The truth of the matter is that many architectural experiences -- especially in a crowded country like ours -- are essentially a bottom-up experience. A layman first experiences the door handle, then the door which s/he is opening, then the room and by the time s/he comes to look at the building and read aesthetic statements into it, s/he has been caught up the day to day chakravyuhs that are part and parcel of India. Very rarely does one get the time or in fact the space to look at and imbibe an overall understanding of the aesthetics of a project. Neither are the projects so simple that they can indeed be given one, unique identity.

New architects have been trying to force such issues and project a strong statement to the observers. When such projects do project such a strong unified image; I have noticed that those projects invariably hurts the sensibilities of the Indian aesthete, simply because changes in the aesthetic is not considered an exception. It is what aesthetics is all about in India. A consistently overpowering sample of architecture is like eating the same sweet time and again. It becomes nauseating after sometime.

I think the challenge in aesthetic (in fact any Indian design) is to allow a plural interpretation, especially in the bottom-up experience of architecture. I feel that that way, we may be able to cater to the rich mixture of aesthetic tastes that we have in our country. Outside India, such a (non-plural) approach may be tolerable because the cultural background of the people responding to that architecture is fairly homogeneous. That is not the case here.

Let me not give an impression that I am proposing a totally schizophrenic approach to architecture. I am not against consistency in design. Its just that we must think through our project to such an extent that there should be as much different interpretations as possible. If it comes to a pinch, I would rather forgive the overall consistency or impact instead of depriving the multi-layered approaches for the details of a project.

The church that I designed in Nerul is an example that I can give to explain this point. The aesthetic approach for that project were thrashed out in our office from many angles and if you see the project; you would notice that there is nothing great or consistent that is being suggested in the church as a whole but in its details there are many, many different aspects that were considered. It would take another article to clarify the design of the church but I could attach an image here for reference:

• Add new comment