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’.