Perceptions of Space

This article is related to the subject of introspecting the nature of ‘thought’. However, although the last article spoke at length on matters relating to the nature of thought (Garde Niranjan, 2016), herein it will be attempted to discuss how perceptions of spaces get formed, altered or modified by changes in place and time. At the crux is the urge to state that architecture cannot be divorced from the dimensions of place and time. Logical and simple as the above statement may seem, however much needs to be said regarding the current tendencies of understanding and conceiving spaces of today – therefore a critical review of this aspect seems appropriate.

Let me begin by stating summarily the current understanding of the quality of perception of space in anthropological field (Guba, Egon & Yvonna Lincoln, 2004). Space is never neutral to a person. Space is perceived based on our nature of mind. The mind forms numerous social constructs for its own survival perhaps and some of those social constructs include our age, gender, class, race, religion, ethnicity, culture and many more. Some of these social constructs may change, some remain constant while others become more sophisticated. This tendency of our mind to operate in terms of a set of social constructs defines our perception towards space. Therefore, the same geographical place may be perceived in different ways by different people in a given time. The same geographical place may be perceived in different ways by the same individual in different times of his/her life. And different geographical places get perceived in different ways by different people in the same slice of time. Thus, if such a variety is expressed by a human mind in terms of place and time, what can we say about our perception towards space (and by extension – architecture)?

Therefore, this article attempts to elucidate questions rather than answers. Overall mode of expression is of inquiry (to be done by each of us) rather than trying to make universally applicable statements which one needs to agree or disagree. Thus, we start by asking ourselves how is space perceived and how is this perception linked to the context? Is it possible to understand the history of architecture in terms of changing or evolving perceptions of spaces? Is it possible to understand critically the nature of architecture that we seem to create today based on such introspection exercises?

The mythical space:

The characteristics of perceiving space as a mythical space has been illustrated before by international authors. When we talk of myth, we are alluring to a kind of an experience. As mentioned before (Garde Niranjan, 2016), the primordial experience of ourselves and the environment that we have perceived has been formed through our associations with and complete dependence on Nature for our survival. The Time period referred to is very ancient. Condensing all experiences, we may realize that the primordial experience we are referring to is ‘fear’ of Nature and related expression in terms of awe/ respect. The mythical space is a creation of our mind. This mythical space is our subjective interpretation of the geographical space that we seemed to have perceived in earlier times. This space is intuitive, cosmic, supernatural and has references to climate and local geography. It may also include a reference of local flora and fauna and expresses our subjective understanding of the forces of Nature and processes of evolution, change and inter dependence. The existing physical space that we would have perceived that time and the imaginary space that we would have conceived and constructed in those times would necessarily have had majority of above constituents. The scale of this mythical space may be in a form of a small mound, shrine or to the entire landscape of rivers, valleys, trees, mountains and so on. An example of such a conceived space is the humble stupa. In contemporary times for the contemporary observer, this may appear to be a simple, unobtrusive mound of earth or other durable material, however, the perception of the same stupa may have been profound in ancient times to which we are alluring to. Can we then attempt to understand and perceive our ancient landscapes in that manner? Almost everything that our ancestors have seen takes on a mythical and a sacred dimension. It finds expression in our built heritage, imagined heritage and literary traditions. Thus, can we therefore comprehend such vestiges of architecture in our country as expressions of our mythical dimensions of perceptions of spaces? As we change with time, so does the meaning of architecture that we assign to spaces around us. The neglect of such architecture is an indication of the dissolution of our earlier tendencies of perceptions (which are replaced by other tendencies that we would be seeing in forthcoming paragraphs).  And therefore, have we just forgone that dimension of mythical perception of space in contemporary times? If yes, how are those physical vestiges to be now adapted to current scenario? I leave these questions to the Reader to ponder.

Experiential Spaces:

The next question that we are attempting to address is what is the nature of our experience? How do we experience spaces? How have we perceived spaces before in different periods of our history? Let’s try and understand this by means of certain cases, so we begin to understand the constituents of perception. This opens up the domain of culture and the understanding of self and community. At an individual level, our senses of touch, smell, sight, sound, taste contribute in shaping our perceptions of a given space.  This perception is furthered colored by ‘memory’. This memory may be individual or shared across generations. Beginning with the mythical space and with the progression of our society with increased layers of sophistication of thought over a millennia, has brought changes in our perceptions of climate, geography, people and technology. This meant the manner in which we lived as a community (social structures), the manner in which resources were procured, shared and put to use, the manner in which we made tools, and applied these tools to create spaces. This meant the manner in which we learned from our mistakes, improvised and did architecture by the continuous process of experimentation, adaptation to climate and responding to specific potentials and constraints of a ‘place’. This meant the creation and the use of memory to lead us or guide us ahead. Thus, spaces have had (and continue to have) social and cultural dimensions. Architecture maybe therefore perceived and conceived as a social and cultural product specific to a given place and time.  Is it possible to view and perceive our architectural heritage from this dimension, when we attempt to understand architecture across the Indian subcontinent? Can we learn to see architecture in India and find those indicators of perceptions that point to an honest expression of a response to climate, materials, people’s needs and their belief systems? A simple courtyard, or a verandah, or a compound wall or an intimate window may be perceived in that manner. A tree, a well, a platform around the tree, an open space along the street may be perceived in such similar ways. Each architecture element may profoundly express the depth of social and cultural dimensions in our life (if we allow ourselves to perceive spaces in those ways). To perceive spaces in those layers requires us to understand the inter relationship of climate, people, technology and their aspirations. It requires us to be ‘grounded’ in terms of conceiving responses that address particular concerns of people in a particular time frame and exhibiting particular definition of place. Thus, as we look at our own historical past of architectural spaces, what does it attempt to say about ourselves and our own perceptions? What do the ghats along river belts say? Can we perceive the definition of the river as expressed by a ghat? Why does a shrine have to be located amongst trees, or mountain top or at the bottom of the hill? What seems to be the association with the nostalgic (and at times romantic) discourse surrounding the courtyard and the verandah or the Indian public street? What do such spaces express in terms of our own perceptions? Have we thought deep enough and sufficient enough? Can we use the social and cultural potentials of such spaces for our contemporary aspirations and challenges? Can we continue to perceive and conceive spaces in social and cultural dimensions in times of globalization and global uniformity of processes, modes of productions and creations? What place does history, culture, Society, memory have in contemporary discourse of space creation? Can we continue to have our experiences ‘grounded’ or place specific or context specific in times of fundamental changes in technology and society? Or do we need to reinterpret the definition of ‘groundedness’? Indian architecture is loaded with the dimensions of cultural and social responses. Perhaps, in traditional perspective, it is difficult to engage with pure exercise of architectonics without ample consideration of social and cultural dimensions. The basic perception of architectural form in traditional sense, might not have been divorced from the perception of community and culture. Thus, a wall, an opening, an open space is not neutral – it has meaning. With the passage of time and development of technology, meanings attributed to architecture have undergone change. In some places, the meanings have changed at a faster pace than other parts of our continent. Can we begin to see the diversity of architecture in Indian subcontinent as an expression of diversity of perceiving and conceiving spaces? What we wish to understand here, that it is wrong to judge architecture by a mere appraisal of form, since it is the meaning behind the form that needs to be understood. It can also be said that simplicity in the expression of architectural form does not necessarily mean shallowness in thought or perception. The depth of thought resulting in a particular architectural form may only be evident by indicators of its responses to climate, technology, social concerns, culture, flexibility of use, adaptation to changing situations. As the saying goes ‘do not judge a book by its cover’, can the same be said of architectural form? This brings us to the fundamental question about who is creating the meaning. With what meaning should spaces be designed? And how should spaces conceived by architects encompass multiple meanings created by individuals? Can we tap into such intangible layers of meaning creation and express them through tangible language of architectural form? Or have we lost the patience to do so?

Current Observations:

It may be now proper to understand the characteristics of contemporary situation and what potentials plus challenges we seem to encounter in this globally internet connected world? Indeed, the overt use of terms such as ‘potentials’ and ‘challenges’ is the marker of the kind of relationship we seem to generate with spaces around us. Fundamentally, with rapid changes and extreme levels of advancement in technology, rapid flow of information exchange and new ways of modes of production and dissemination of systems of construction, our relationship with our self and the environment is changing at a rate perhaps unimagined before. At the root cause of concern is the aspect of ‘Time’ and how we choose to understand the depth of a given situation. Following effects of rapid change seem to alter our nature of experiences towards spaces – experiences seem to loosen their connection with being ‘place – specific’. This means, all life’s meanings that originated from being grounded in a particular ‘place’ seem to appear redundant so as NOT to be considered worthy enough for design consideration. In other words, we seem to be experiencing a phenomenon of ‘placelessness’ or being loosely generic in our perception towards space creation exercise. There is hardly any thought that is intuitively felt, that stirs us or which we attempt to take it deep down to our inner being and relate with the place specific context. With so fast a pace, so much information bombardment of global ideas and images, what we seem to miss out is the fundamental relation of context with space conception and perception. With such a fast replacement of techniques and processes and a constantly fluid digital environment, what we seem to lose out are dimensions of cultural sensitivity, site specificity and memory. With advancement in technology and increasing digitization, and increasing demands of individualism, what we endanger is the admittance of our dependence on Nature and our connections with each other as fellow human beings. What we seem to fundamentally jeopardize is the need to create meanings born out of social interactions. The perceptions of spaces in such an environment therefore may hardly ignite any strong memory or feeling or psychological comfort. What we seem to be heading is a sense of aloofness, isolation and social disconnect. Everything is spoken only in terms of efficiency, planning, logistics, quantum, management, collaboration, intellectual ideas and rationalization of responses. I ask ourselves, if there is any place left for emotions and feelings? If there is any consideration given to people and culture? Should we bulldoze all such concerns for the sake of giving something quick in least amount of time?

Can we pause? Can we reconsider the benefits of going slow and start to communicate back with the place, climate and people? Can we allow ourselves the pace to wonder and create mysteries? Can we again calm ourselves and understand multiple meanings of the same place?

It is our choice.

Niranjan Garde

Bibliography:

1.       Garde Niranjan (2016), Introspection, Architecture + Design, 33(03)

2.       Guba, Egon & Yvonna Lincoln (2004), Competing Paradigms in Qualitative Research: Theories and Issues, 21-37. In Approaches to Qualitative Research: A Reader on Theory and Practice. Oxford: Oxford University