Shree: Modernity and architecture

 

Shree: Modernity and architecture

 

Modernity can perhaps be spoken simply as capitalization of mindset, individualization and advertisement. One of its effects is on exploitation of resources and heightened privacy - now reaching internal fractures.

 

This has effects on what one refers to as indigenous values and architecture of built spaces + public spaces; vernacular values and so on. If one talks of “values” then one means the whole perception of climate, geography, conception of livelihood, and subsequently the experience of spaces (in terms of scale and proportions). All that is imagined is finally expressed in tangible terms of architecture and landscape.

 

Now this imagination may be collective or may become individual. This is a huge transformation- from collective to individual.

 

Pre-modern “cultures” may be spoken from many angles of perception. This is our story which we have forgotten or given away for something different. At the heart seems to be recognition of a larger value (maybe of environment or spirit or religion or culture or geography) and a collective response to the same. That may translate into large families, compact high density urban fabric, shared walls and shared spaces, (in fact shared to an extent that the entire city looks as one mass) and changing internal space syntax as if the meaning of internal spaces is extremely fluid and not so much conspicuous presence of form. Changes in cultures may have been slow and this probably meant stronger continuation of collective values. Dependence on climate or nature was a given and resources may have been used sparingly. Life may have been hard although I am not sure if this hardship was verbalized or just accepted with a pinch of salt. Space may have been emotionally anchored and a strong sense of memory would be layered along with it, which may resist any change. This has reflections on scale, proportions, openings, movements through space.

 

We contrast this to modern cultures or way of living where the pace of change is accelerated by technological advancement and the idea of individualism and privacy. This reflects on detached built forms, increased roads or locomotion networks, more private spaces, less public spaces, more private landscapes, more “distances” (either physical or in mindscape), stricter particular refined non shared functions, non flexible built forms, non standard physical forms, energy intensive spaces and so on. Life is believed to be made simple, but perhaps it may have also increased mental stress stemming from mental isolation. Space and its construct is also a sort of vacuum – disconnected from any idea of shared or common spaces or a larger value of any kind. The attachment to space is one of fear or of consumption but very rarely of nourishment and anchorage. All this is a severe compromise on deeper feelings. We verbalize a lot about stresses, but cannot rectify the fractures. Does enhanced verbalization inhibit fruitful action or healing?! Do “words” make our feelings hardened?! This too reflects on scale proportions and movement through space.

 

We change mindscape and that changes space. Nearness or intimacy and feelings can be spoken from the point of view of proportions and scales – all interconnected and humble modules and one space flowing over the other as a continuous transition. The opposite of these qualities of disconnections, lack of transitions, strict boundaries may express farness.

 

There was a time when senses and eye sight could lead to a feeling of nearness - the relation was simple and direct. What one could see or touch or hear or smell or taste – that stimuli was “near” and became a part of our memory. It is not so obvious now. Nearness of stimuli no longer guarantees its presence or character. What generates closeness or nearness is intellectual focus. If I am attuned to events taking place in foreign shores (or even in AI), then I am close to those stimuli. If I am control freak, anxious individual, then I am closer to those tendencies and behavior.

 

Therefore, the inquiry is what signals in the mind you would like to be closer to and generate within yourself? Would that lead to suitable thoughts, feelings, behavior? Would that lead to suitable activities and relations? Would that lead to suitable spatial vocabulary and therefore architecture?

 

Hari Om.