The making of a Place
This article contains my views on the nature
of ‘place’ making. The purposes for which, people configure spaces in order to
create ‘places’ is the central topic of discussion here. The premise I am
stating here is the need for creation of ‘place’ is because of the nature of
our existence. Space is already out there. However, we create purposes and
express those purposes in terms of modulation of space, that we call
architecture. ‘Place’ (or the purpose or the need) already exists in our minds before
any built structure is created by us. Space may be said to be a
backdrop where this need finds an expression. And therefore, naturally, our
basic needs have stemmed out from our extremely intimate encounters with the
natural spatial framework given by Nature. Our journey begins with trying to
understand what thoughts got generated when we began to encounter with Nature.
The nature of those thoughts have defined the kind of ‘places’ we have created
in those times.
The general sequence of presenting the
nature of thoughts begins with primitive, experiential and the sophisticated
nature. These words mean something very specific to different disciplines
(anthropology, sociology, architecture) – these words may mean discriminatory
for some professionals, although my intention is not to discriminate, but to
understand and express certain phenomena. I fully understand the limitations of
language - especially in terms of its inability to capture emotions and
intuitive responses. Trickier is the situation where thoughts are embedded in
primitive time period and we fall miserably short in describing those ‘primitive’
purposes through the use of contemporary spoken language and mindset. My
request to the reader is to look at the language as an expression of certain
tendencies of human behavior. Secondly, the sequence presented here is meant to
state a nature of thought process – it may not necessarily mean a forward (or a
linear) movement of thought. In the enormous history of human civilization,
certain nature of thoughts were found parallel across the globe despite located
in different places and time periods, others developed from the previous
thought patterns (in the same place) and other thoughts were transformed by
inter mixing of different cultures. Finally, we are also currently experiencing
a transition of thoughts influenced by means of technology. A look at history
may offer the nature of transition that we experience today. Of course, many
parameters may be left out in this narrative and my focus is primarily on the
intuitive aspect.
My views have been compiled from my
personal experiences, my student life, professional experience, my research
program in Canada and being involved with the subject of history of
architecture as an academician.
Thus, this is just one narrative to
understand ourselves and how we think about space and the process of ‘place’ making.
Primitive and the spiritual nature:
The first question to ask is how has
man lived from the beginning? What were his immediate concerns? The history of
all cultures across the world shows us that our thoughts were completely
consumed on matters related to survival. Generally, life seems to have been
nomadic, extremely uncertain and experientially dangerous. Man was completely
at the mercy of the ferocity of Nature for all his requirements of survival.
The oldest habitations have been caves or any kind of natural formations which
seem to give a sense of some kind of protection from the vagaries of Nature or
which sustain human life and therefore, origins of thoughts related to ‘place’
making processes are developed in those kind of spaces across the world. Those
spaces became our first ‘places’ to survive and sustain ourselves. These include among other things – caves,
trees, river belts – anything and everything that enhanced our survival
chances. The primordial experiences of ‘places’ are thus tied with natural landscape.
Through generations of associations with these ‘places’, they later on
transformed themselves into ‘symbolic places’.
In other words, over the centuries, our
experiences and relationship with Nature and the natural places (and natural
elements) on which our survival depended, have been expressed in symbolic terms
such as painting, maybe a rudimentary sculpture, menhir or a primordial mound
or an enclosure. The birth of the concept of God and numerous spiritual
practices is an expression of this thought. There have been expressions of Gods
in all cultures across the world – in the form of natural elements such as the
Wind, Heat, Fire, Cold, Sun, Moon, Rivers, Mountains, Trees and so on. Thus, we
must understand that the concept of God is our own creation of trying to
understand the characteristics of the environment around us. By defining God,
we find one of the earliest expressions of “place” that represents the cosmos,
plants, animals and the climate as felt by us. Such Gods may take the form of
intangible worship practices such as seen in the Vedas or take the form of
idols as seen in Greeks, Egyptian, and Hindu civilizations. Thus different
idols represent an expression of different ‘geographical places’ as symbolically
felt by us. Any idol or a form can rise up to the status of being symbolic. It
is our belief in those physical forms which represent our concerns fully, that lead
to the creation of symbolic architecture. We find origins of such architecture
conveying these symbolic ideas in mounds, (precursors of Stupas), caves, trees,
sometimes only a sacred enclosure in terms of stones demarcating a sacred space
(Etruscan Times) and so on. In short, all landscape may have been viewed
symbolically and maybe having a sacred significance. Who defines the sacred
nature? It is we. Therefore, as far as our Indian subcontinent is concerned,
rivers (and their Sangam), spots
generating hot springs, volcanic eruptions, trees, mountains have been
perceived symbolically – the sustainer of Life and not mere geographical
features (as we perceive them today). Origins of space modulations by humans
have happened in these areas and we later on find humble enclosures dotted on
the same landscapes. Enclosure may be for protection or a symbolic expression
of cosmos. They may be for our habitation or for the habitation of the Spirit
that resides in the ‘place’.
Parallel to this development is our
attempt to understand the concept of life and death. The pain or the loss of a
fellow person and our attempt to retain the importance of the departed in our
lives has led to creation of the pyramids (Egyptian), or the stupas (Buddhist),
ziggurats, mastabas or countless forms of burials found across the globe. Architectural
forms for these have been inspired from Nature and have been governed by
structural forces. Interestingly, there has been an overlap of the purpose of
burial with the purpose of a shrine in some cultures - the example being the
Stupa. In either case – what a burial or a shrine attempts to do is remembrance
of a belief system or a departed being. All cultures have passed through such
phases in some point of their growth and it is natural. The significance of these structures lies in
understanding their meaning. If we feel the meaning behind the structure, it
starts to respond to us – otherwise, it is just any other object. In retaining
these architectural masterpieces in contemporary times, what we remember is
those thoughts that represented us at that
point of time. They are the memorials of our own past, telling us how we
thought about the environment. They offer the deepest glimpse of our
consciousness. Of course, not all has been romantic in the past and of course
differentiations have existed in a given society. However, what I wish to
portray is a dominant remain of a primordial and spiritual instinct that we
carry forward in contemporary times too, which should be acknowledged. If we
think about what is the basis of all thoughts that we express, then it is the
primordial dimension of fear and its antithesis of spiritual expression.
Experiential:
The undercurrents of such architecture
representing our relation to a particular place (symbolic, intuitive,
primitive, direct or unsophisticated, extremely localized, sustainable, unbiased)
are carried forward from tribal life to urban life. Certain architectural space
symbols get condensed and frozen with the passage of time. These, representing
our relation to the place of origin are carried forward through Time and to new
places and in other building types too. In doing so, what seems to be
emphasized is a continuity of tradition, cultural belief systems or a language
to absorb a new order. Wars and trade generate a movement of people and they
carry their symbolic values to new places. Thus, the symbolic elements in
architecture get transported, modified, adapted to new geographical places. Movement
of people also represent movement of skills and an attitude towards ‘place’
making and handling technology – all these manifest in local architecture of
the new place. Thus, the architecture of the new place may express a mix of
cultural values originated from different sources. This carrying of symbols and
the transformation of local architecture has happened in all regions of the
world – especially where movement has been noticeable. This, we associate as a
‘style’. The patrons for this transformation may be common people or political
leaders, who can command resources from far off areas. More important than
this, should be a study of how spaces reflect a cultural transformation. In the
vast time period of history, probably till the mid of twentieth century, the
process of ‘place’ making had strong ingredients of local culture, traditional
belief systems, local skills of construction and use of local materials. This
tendency of ‘place’ making still exists in certain cultures and also in the
rural and semi rural hinterlands of India. Dimensions of thoughts expressed in
this architecture are symbolic, respect for climatic constraints, balancing of
available resources and need for security. Material choices seem to be limited;
however, it is motivating to see that it does not curb the human tendency to
satisfy his creative instincts. Thus, we must ask ourselves, having limited
resources does not inhibit the quality of architecture in any way. What is
required is the understanding and honest synthesis of the context of which, we
are a part of. Can we ask ourselves when we undertake the endeavor to design –
that have we been honest in defining the purpose and the process of ‘place’
making? I believe, this is the bottom line for creating good architecture. This
quality of design asks us to comprehensively think of all parameters related to
existence – environment/ ecology, purpose, people, climate, skills, materials
to name a few. And not only think, but to tap to our own deep recesses of the
mind – to reach a state where information seems to break down, seems to
evaporate and out of the chaos a new order or a new interpretation is created.
To realize the new order, also means to let go of our own beliefs, or biases
and egos. This is painful. However, the pain is a part of the process of
revelation – it is inevitable. We suffer pain because we cling on to something
– maybe a form or an idea or some notion. The process of revelation teaches us
that there need not be clinging to anything, rather it should be discouraged.
Such repeated revelations through design has a tendency to make us be in touch
with our own depths of thought or clear the cobwebs we accumulate in terms of
information. Therefore, a part of design is also de-learning what we may have
unnecessarily accumulated. The process of design, if carried out truthfully,
becomes a life changing experience for designers as well as the users. Therefore,
what I am stating here is the necessity to introspect and go deep into
ourselves. For this, ‘Time’ and solitude is required. And I believe, this is
one of the most fundamental requirements that must be stated by any designer to
his client.
This leads me to now question the
nature of contemporary urban life and the tremendous influx of digital
technology seeping into our lives. I need not say this again, but by the
constant bombardment of information and the necessity to update ourselves and
respond instantly to systems governed by automation, we are facing the
challenge of carving out time to synthesize what we see, hear and feel. The
mind is constantly filled with images, so when will it empty itself? Images,
which are irrelevant, not at all contextually applicable to India seem to be
occupying the thought structure of the people and designers. We are not
‘seeing’ (interpreting); we fail to ‘hear’ the silences and we are only
‘blabbering’ incessantly. It is an excited state of mind and the majority of urban
architecture that is getting created is a reflection of this state of mind. In
essence, we seem not to be connected with our own primordial sources of
thinking, where we synthesize and generate architecture responding to a
context. What more can one expect from the kind of architecture that is created
in a majority of cases?
My sincere request to all of us, who
are given the responsibility to design, is why do we allow ourselves this
situation of time crunch to be created? Why everything is made so urgent? What
are we fearing so much that we race and are compelled to give an output without
even a trace of contextual thought? Are we afraid to take time and think hard
about ourselves and the environment around us? Are we afraid to question our own
selves and are we afraid to ask fundamental questions to clients? Giving zero
time to self is creating a disastrous expression of ‘place’ making phenomenon. It
is directly expressing what we feel from within – characterless and hardly any
sense of purpose.
I conclude by saying that the quality
of ‘place’ making process depends on the quality of our thoughts. The more
deeper and comprehensive are our thoughts, the more timeless the architecture
might become. It is therefore, for our own benefit, we step back, perhaps shift
gears and take stock of where we are heading. The history of architecture is
loaded with abundant wisdom for mankind. It is upto us to observe, reflect and
transform today’s challenges into a sincere attempt of making of a ‘place’.
posted by niranjan at 2:35 AM
0 comments
