Shree

 Shree 

Space or form is perceived differently by a designer. The principles of philosophy or transcendence, continuity, change, connections, relations, criticalness, resemblance, reuse are engaged in a different way by the architect. And this is very natural. 

This means realization of feelings, qualities of space would happen in a different way for the architect. He/she need not justify this realisation by intellect alone. Both players - academicians and designers need to understand this. 

Secondly creation does not always take the support of theory or a method or intellectual concept. The start point of design and exploration can take on any path. The word that should be used is _inspiration_. 

Thirdly all issues of existence that intellect can verbalise aren't required to be dealt with by Architecture. It is not the burden of architecture to solve problems of the world/ existence and state the solutions in an explicit manner. 

All above things simply mean that a form can turn out to be anything, as long as it is honest, sincere in its intent and can acknowledge connections with the context of life. This also means form may resemble any other previous form, but only as as a coincidence (and not as a deliberate attempt). Architectural historians, at times, judge a form by its appearance but it is quite a shallow understanding of the intent of discovering it. Also historians look at form generation as a linear process and any talk of 'style' again, is similar to only scratching the surface of the idea of space. 

Therefore, we may look at critical histories of architecture. But studio exercises, encounters, engagements, practice, writing are equal or profound contributors to experience the making of the form which becomes malleable, adaptable, interpretative, exploratory and so on.

Hari Om