Learning from Students

Sometimes the encounter with the student can make the teacher learn a lot of things.

I cite the case of Kaushal Tatiya – who recently met me after his workshop stint in Japan. References given by him mentioned extensive use of technological tools (such as software, construction machinery which were used to visualize all aspects that lead to a better design. By “better”, we mean everything that the architect is required to know/ master in terms of thought, process of ‘doing’/ constructing and the making of the product itself. It involves absolute clarity of thought, the sequence of structuring the thought into elements of technology and services, the sequencing of what follows what and the time required to respond to each sequence, the material required for the making of the product and the accurate estimate for the same.

Above knowledge is expected of course. However, what’s commendable regarding the workshop that the students were made to seriously execute each and every step with time precision that finally led to demonstrating the built product for the public in a public space. The attitude speaks volumes about the seriousness with which architectural thinking and construction is seen by the architect.

It also means the level of visualization and the perfection that the entire society strives to achieve and which it expects from the individual.  It also means that the professional can’t afford to make a mistake anywhere since legal stakes might be high.

The workshop might be seen as a simulation of a ‘project’ that the architect is required to do. Not only he is required to visualize all sequences of idea, processes and execution, but it also indicates that the architect has absolute control over aspects of design. The roles and responsibilities of client, architect and contractor seem to be sacrosanct and adhered to in complete seriousness.

Of course, this will lead to comparisons with the Indian environment – the obvious being chaos, illiterate team of execution and disrespecting time, money and other requirements of design – in short leading to apathy. I feel, this is just half of the story.

A more responsible way of looking at the Indian situation is to accept the enormous diversity of skills, material palette, technical knowhow and the socio-cultural imprint that Indian design (ideas, processes and products) are subjected to. In the “khichadi” of available influences (and may we even say onslaught!), perhaps the way forward would be to be an expert collaborator and facilitator of design – that involves all stakeholders with variable aspirations and skill sets. The situation may be something like doing or creating music together! Is that possible? Should this notion of ‘master creator/architect’ tenable? Or we need to accept that we are working as facilitators of some unknown collaborative efforts of many people that make a collaborative product in the end!!

If this is the case – then we need to begin by asking the stakeholders – what are the values that we ALL share for the collaborative working? These would then define the roles, responsibilities, and deliverables of each one involved. We may be looking at a very organic/ collaborative/ spontaneous method of conceiving and developing a product finally. Definitions of ‘forms’, aesthetics may have to be relooked at.

I feel sometimes, that academics may try to simulate the scenario that is taking place in urban environment. In studios, we remain aloof to the concerns of people, technology and other stakeholders – the design remaining in a vacuum and we perhaps getting too inflated with our ideas. Reality outside the academics is far too different. If we realize that it is for the ‘people’ that we owe our profession (and art as well), then their involvement and the involvement of all stakeholders is necessary.

Can we try this?