Primitive, Vernacular and Urban

These thoughts are inspired from reading ‘House, Form and Culture’ by Amos Rapoport.

In the book, it is mentioned that societies have been categorized into primitive, vernacular and industrialized sections. None of these terms are derogative - they only suggest a process of conceiving or imagining a space of living and the process of getting it constructed. Each society conceives things differently.

In India and in many parts of the world, all three kinds of societies exist. By looking at these societies with a critical lens, there is a lot to learn from each other. We often make a terrible mistake of assuming that the “urban” situation and the definition of ‘development’ is the only way to progress ahead. The urban situation is marked by super specialization of trades, extremely high premium of novelty, individual vocabulary of value systems, abuse of resources, exclusivity of urban spaces. There is nothing left to agree on!

The other two societies by varying degrees constitute a shared notion of life, optimum use of resources, multiple uses of spaces, non recognition of novelty, incremental changes by trial and error, direct and simple approach to use of technique , material and climatic constraints. In effect, the response to architecture is unsophisticated and non self conscious. Where did people learn such skills? The answer lies in dependence on geography or the necessity of survival. Years of trials and errors have optimized a response towards architecture which we term as history or culture. By looking at the response, we come to decode some philosophical values of dependence on Nature, sustenance, respect and dignity of work and so on. These responses shown by people are so direct, that they may not be even aware of their profound values! To learn architecture of these peoples, is to understand their complete life patterns of agriculture, animal husbandry, social structures, art and culture – these are all interrelated. Art is not done only for the sake of art – they don’t sing only for the sake of a soothing tone and they don’t build just for the heck of it or for some commercial gain. Hence, all such expressions of their lives are very serious/ unsophisticated and pure. Another thing to be noticed in such societies is the concern of the past to shape the present and lead to a stable future. There is no rupture anywhere and the whole thing seems continuing and evolving slowly. All these tendencies indicate a process of imagining and doing architecture. The ‘form’ of architecture is shaped by such forces. It will be useful to realize that visual form (and its discussion) may not be the focus while being engrossed in the process of conceiving and doing architecture. The visual form (and its visual aesthetics and spatial experience) is a direct product of socio-cultural-climatic-technological factors. The definition of contextual response means this.

In urban setting however, much effort is misled by focusing on the form and judging the book by its cover. There is no question of considering socio-cultural obligations as well, as each person in the urban scenario acts like a total stranger and high end technology has already made the consideration of climatic forces redundant. Adding to the disconnect, the recent dependence on Artificial Intelligence has made it all the more possible to implant any kind of an idea at the fastest possible speed onto the local soil. So the imagery of architecture in urban setting does not necessarily present an honest response to the local social, climatic and technological constraints.

It is not my intention to criticize urban scenario and to romanticize rural scenarios. Changes are bound to happen. However, we must realize what is at stake here and what fundamental values need to be retained and continued into the future while conceiving and doing architecture? The answer to this question will offer clues to connect the primitive-vernacular-urban conception models.

The Sequence

One of the most important aspects of design that ties all aspects together and brings alive an imagined experience is the”sequence” of moving through a space – be it campus or one building or an entire city – or even the Universe (the solar systems, galaxies becoming anchors or signposts for our movements). It is the sequence that binds all spaces, reveals them as we move along and offers control and possibility to do our own activities. As people, we need security - and this word I am taking to mean psychological. What makes us secured, but not bored? And what makes us secured but not lost? Thus, a fine line of balance between limitless possibilities and some sort of “anchor” to thread those possibilities is required. We have both experiences existing at the same time. An architecture that offers both such experiences simultaneously, may be said to be great at an experiential level. In effect, the architectural elements are arranged to evoke an experience. It is not the element that we see, but its relationship to other elements, relationship to light and relationship to the way we move – that defines the experience. Hence, architecture is not just visual, but far more intimate.

Parallel to the architectural sequence that we mention above, we need to be aware of the sequence of thoughts that our mind generates. This sequence defines an experience of feelings. Being aware of the sequence helps us to at least control unwanted experiences to a greater extent. The sequence needs to be consciously controlled – so we start to feel control over our lives. Best experiences are an amalgamation of predetermined plan of action and spontaneous adaptation and absorption of an external situation. We can’t throw everything to the winds and we can neither expect to control everything from start to finish. We need both things to exist at the same time (and not in compartments).

I don’t think so that there is any moment when we are awake, that we don’t think. Thinking is an expression of sequence. And sequence indicates, existence, ‘you’, ‘me’, ‘time’ and everything else. It affects ‘us’ at a mental level. This is the single most realization that humans are capable of realizing. The next obvious need comes to define the sequence to generate some meaningful existence! Thus, we have a choice and we also need to trust and accept its effect.

What is ‘Pain’?

Aren’t I supposed to be bored trying to cling onto this pain?

Can’t I see that the pain is nothing but a heavy baggage that should be dropped at the first instant?

Can’t I see that the greater the pain, the greater is the resistance to the idea of change?

Can’t I see that the pain is in my head and it is not out there?

Can’t I see that the pain is my own imagination and that I need to work on my own imagination?

Can’t I see that guilt or regret or any kind of complex is just not required to move on?

Can’t I see that it wasn’t personal at all!

Can’t I see that I am not entirely responsible for a situation?

Can’t I see that the situation is what it is…I can decide its relationship to me?

Can’t I see that the past is over. A thought comes and goes. It ends at that.

Can’t I see that a thought is yet to come. When it comes, it comes, it stays and it goes. Allow its passage.

Thoughts are like continuous flow of water or the wind. They keep coming and they keep going. Why they come, we don’t know. But they will come. Why they go, we don’t know, but they will go. In between coming and going, ‘we’ as a phenomenon, are situated. It is upto us how we ride through the flow of thoughts. Just like water, wind, sun….thoughts affect us.

What are thoughts? So abstract, but so real! Observe the thoughts. Observe. That is what is required. Nothing more, nothing else.

The ‘I’ in the Medium

Who is this ‘me’?

I want this, I want that….I hate this or I love that. I am fat or I am thin. I like him or I dislike her….

The ‘I’ is like an imagined boundary. Observe what that boundary does to you!

Should the boundary be abandoned? Should it be ignored? Should it be ridiculed?...Of course not! We are what we are – the ‘I’ is the basis for giving direction to life. If the ‘I’ is abandoned or ridiculed, so is life!

Conversely, should the boundary be made sacrosanct? That you justify your efforts, your faults, your excuses, your expectations, your wants over everything else? That you consider the world no worthy to step up to your pedestal? Do it, and the world would show you the finger!

If not this and not that, then how is this ‘I’ to be seen? Is it real or imaginary? Is it true whatever it says or all false? Don’t know. What this ‘I’ does, is to create an ambiguous terrain. What gets created is your decision. You can perceive and conceive the way you want. Since ‘I’ is abstract, it can expand, contract, the way it chooses to. Slowly, you will realize the medium wherein this movement of ‘I’ takes place.

The only way to understand ‘I’ is to observe it whole heartedly, without imposing any value judgments and without clinging too many expectations on itself.

Why should ‘I’ do this exercise? Not compulsory. If not done, then one can’t sense the medium, one only perceives the ‘I’. We protect the ‘I’ from imagined onslaught and keep running for a hopeful scenario of control, wherein the ‘I’ will remain perfectly safe….However, if we try, we can realize that the medium is beyond the imagined notions of the ‘I’ and therefore, blissful. The path to realize this experience, is to watch the ‘I’.

Bouncers

Bouncers are usually associated with 'pub culture' - any rowdy behaviour by a customer may elicit a very unpleasant response from the bouncer that the customer is not supposed to forget! A look at a bouncer is quite enough to send a chill down anybody's spine, who is yet in his senses. So arguing with him, is literally a farfetched idea - as easy as walking on the moon.

Times have somewhat come to a stage, wherein the bouncer's business (or demand so to say) may expand in a variety of fields, wherein decorum, decency, law is increasingly being jeopardized - which means almost everywhere! I wonder with what values, morality, ethics am I approaching a consultancy field such as architecture - a far reaching code of understanding and creating conducive environment for human habitation. In an age of information explosion, technological innovation the nature of thought that seems to be created in humans is the idea of narcissism (antithesis of empathy).

Empathy for architects is required to understand 'context' - a situation of climate, technology, culture and society. This grounds architecture onto a given 'soil'. In the mode of action, empathy is required to understand the role of other players who contribute into the making of architecture for the architects (client, consultants, contractors, labours and other people). In academic life, the responsibility of teachers is to generate empathy in the students to understand their environment and to ground their ideas in differing situations.

However, in real life, things seem to be getting messier. It is getting increasingly difficult to manage inflated and distorted egos of stakeholders who make your team in a given project. Traditionally, the onus of defining and conceiving a response for a given context was a prerogative of the architect, now it doesn't seem to matter whose prerogative it is! We don't know what we are beginning with, where we are heading, and what we have accomplished and how to review what we have created!! We end up just doing 'something' for the sake of doing it!

In this hindsight, it is better to keep a bouncer at our offices. One nasty argument from a client or any consultant challenging your notion of context, and you know whom to resort to help! Let the bouncer take care of everything else and let him kick others in their butts if they don't seem to have an inkling of code of ethics/morality or what needs to be done. Of course, keeping a bouncer by me - would that be a narcissism?