Shree: Primitive Architecture and Mimar Houses (preliminary)

Shree: Primitive Architecture and Mimar Houses (preliminary)

Thoughts from two books – Mimar Houses that have a few chapters on nomadic architecture and Primitive architecture that solely focuses on the idea of nomads, semi nomads and their architecture.

Primitive architecture is written from anthropological perspective, wherein how is ‘territory’ (geography) reconstructed out of history and myth and how that reflects onto the phenomenon of siting, site plan, spatial conception and perception by those people, and the forms that get generated because of such forces (at least that seems the manner in which the text goes). Therefore, perhaps form as an architectonic expression of immediate context and who does what and how (construction) has secondary emphasis here. It also seems to suggest to me that depending on one’s existential context (in this case nomad) the human mind imagines “territory” not only as a physical place wherein natural resources are available but also how does one imagine/ anchor/ identify with the given terrain wherever the nomad goes. So there may be a ‘history’ of ancestors that generate a definition of appropriate territory that they are required to enact, followed by how new resources become part of the story or the myth of God and relationship between God and nomad – all these seem to become the start points of laying stake over nomadic architecture. We then move onto enactment and expression of this myth or a story onto “idea diagrams” wherein above characters may become part of the diagrams, an anthropomorphic representation of site, spaces, may occur and also an inclusion of clans, hierarchy, social relations and gender roles may also get featured. Thus it is felt that there is a continuum between myth, geography, first ancestor, history, social relations and activities involved into making of architectural form. Architecture represents the culmination of all these thoughts occurring in the mind and perhaps just as whatever power the paintings may evoke among cave painters, similar power the architecture may be evoking in all the nomads – maybe referred as subconscious thinking (to paraphrase Eliel Saarinen).

The book is highly textual/ descriptive – for the architect concerned with more diagrams and spatial relationships that may not offer much. What it offers is a description of a phenomenon suported by idea diagrams that may have been interpreted for some steps. Questions about overall connections of all diagrams onto architecture remain (and that may not get reolved anytime soon I feel).

Therefore a phenomenon of migration undertaken by Kazaks going in circles for 400 km is described as an overview. But how does that construct a territory, what gets encountered at each camping site and how the whole gets represented in the part – of architecture – as connections and as diagrams is not clear enough. Addition of more diagrams may be of assistance and diagrams may be idea diagrams or space diagrams.

Taking the same example of Kazaks and their tent – Yurt – the Mimar Houses start from the architectural end of the phenomenon. With a series of diagrams it is easily possible to know how a Yurt gets done by material supply, assembly, people and carrying it over camels and how space is used inside for what purposes. This is where architecture’s diagrams can contribute I feel. Of course the focus does not deviate or does not go much beyond the practical necessities of Yurt Architecture. Herein the question remains how such spaces that are represented in plan offer a glimpse of their construct of ‘territory’ and their world view or values? This question is not addressed in this book.

Another essay in the same book talks about how ‘architecture’ of nomads as a whole can be interpreted and it lays some intuitive observations on the ‘forms’ of tent that may signify need of anchoring in a hostile environment and hence the closed ended forms; highly decorated interiors with rich symbolism; customization; gender roles; emphasis on tactile sensations; enhanced symbolism on structural members and the ‘tent’ meaning shelter/ place of hiding/ sacred enclosure/ marriage/ world and many other things in their life. The word “anchor” and “meaning” as an intrinsic human need (or feeling) is spoken about here and hence its reflection onto creation of space. This I felt was a very intuitive understanding of interpretation of form and perhaps need not have any other dimensions of socio-cultural-political identity – an absolute condensation of all feelings (phenomenological idea?). Another reference in the same essay was made on Bachalard (Poetics of Space) wherein he mentions that those who find themselves isolated from environments (or if environments have little to offer) then the forms of such people become “rounded”. This is interesting since it tells us why a roundedness appears. Round is a symbolic representation (as a close ended entity, perhaps seem to have tight or non porous borders of intercommunication between inside-outside to such an extent that the internal world has a character of its own that can only signify the external elements in symbolic manner – in one way it may be said to be the highest form of “abstraction”? and then it opens up another topic of what does one mean by making things “abstract” – does it mean a process of internalization; does it mean a process of representation; does it mean realization of fundamental and non formative forces that underlie everything; does it mean representing a ‘thing’ by some hidden dimension of structure or forms or forces etc.? Therefore, abstraction does not mean only to decode or dissect and finally annhiliate a thing to its bare essentials. Again, annhiliation (or removal) is not a physical thing (as is erroneously thought about) but a process of even constructing something mysterious from the inner processes of the mind. Thus substractions or additions are too crude and superfluous terms perhaps used in architecture? Both may mean entirely different and have huge overlaps while undertaking a process of internalization.

Another take of this book is that it challenges the distinction or the idea of conventional practice of client, architect, builder and end user as the default stakeholders and it says that in tent architecture, everyone is equally everyone else! This is obvious as a difference but what I wish to add here that has conventional mode of architecture come to this point that it can ‘only’ sustain the four stakeholders in a project as against primitive or tent architecture wherein all characters from mythology to historical ancestors to territories to social relations to physical relations to other forms become the legible characters in creating a story of architectural form? So have we (as urban architects) become too gross or superfluous in the name of complexity and is the primitive architecture too rich with experiences that these apparent urban based practice that acknowledges just four stakeholders appear too abstract or distant from their point of view? Another perspective may be that stratification and power relations of some form appear in any kind of architectural manifestation - either in primitive or in urban setup. Therefore what changes is only the language of imagination (or of connection) where space for thought, feelings, social relationships, environment need to be given and likewise an expression need to respond to such a conception.