Talking architecture with non-architects
If by any chance, you are a non-architect reading this, without ‘googling’, can you tell the name of the building in the picture above?
Your answers could be Yes, No, or I am not able to remember.
Now, the name of the building in the image below?
Easy. There are very high chances that non-architects would not know the name of the building in the image 1, but, they would certainly know Taj Mahal. The reason is simple, more people have talked about the latter. More people connect with the love story around the monument in Agra, than the challenges that the architect and structural designer faced while building the Hall of Nations (Picture 1). In non architectural media, Taj Mahal has got published much more than the Hall of Nations.
Why am I making this comparison? I have a feeling that, to architects the Hall of Nations was like Taj Mahal of the modern Indian architecture.
During my last train journey from Bhagalpur to New Delhi, which went on for nearly 24 hours — I took this opportunity to discuss architecture with non-architects. I opened up this discussion with my co-travelers. None of them was an architect. None of them recognized the Hall of Nations building. Leave alone feeling sad about its demolition. About the architects, some of them thought architects make drawings for approval, that’s it. And some also confused architecture with civil engineering. It wasn’t their fault.
I often come across comments from architects like “the government and people don’t understand the value of architects and architecture.” Again, it isn’t people’s or even government’s fault. The fault lies with us, architects, and, within the profession.
My question is, when was the last time you discussed architecture with a non-architect? Casually? Like you discuss politics and current affairs? In most cases, architects do discuss architecture with their clients, who are non-architects. It doesn’t help much, as the client has landed up in an architect’s office because s/he already knows what is architect required for. And in majority of cases, the client belongs to the elite circle, which architects are already serving.
A lot of architecture is being talked about by architects, but with architects only. These talks don’t go beyond the small community of architects. And worst, these discussions hardly help the people outside the profession. Think about all the conferences, seminars and workshops on architecture.. how many non-architects attend it? or , are invited to attend it?
That’s where the profession has failed.
For no valid reason, it is we the professionals, who have made architecture look unnecessarily serious and inaccessible to the common people. Because of the language that most people fail to understand and connect with, architecture gets touted as a profession only for the elite. We have made architects look superfluous. More than 90% of architecture in India is happening without the involvement of ‘architects’. Look at the cities or rural areas — How much contribution are architects really making there?
Below, this is what I drew yesterday. This is what architecture and architects really look like to me.
There were some interesting comments and disagreements too on the above. Check my Facebook, Instagram and Twitter accounts.
The profession can no longer afford to keep itself isolated from the people at large. If we want people to value architects, we have to ensure that architecture becomes the matter of public discourse.
Every time I come across a comment that people don’t value architects or understand architecture, I go back to the following quote by Thomas Oommen:
…If tomorrow, all of us architects are deported to another planet, it will make absolutely no difference to 99% of people — I mean for rich, middle class and poor alike. Buildings will still be built, plumbing will still be laid out, facades will still be fixed…”
Architecture is a cultural practice — as “useless” as art, sculpture, music or literature. No one cares too much, if a particular piece of music suddenly goes out of circulation.
With more and more architectural practices concentrating only in the urban areas, architects are losing their relevance with the larger society. And, as Gautam Bhatia says, “Architecture has ended up becoming gadget for the rich.”
How do we fix this? Some solutions to begin with below:
- Architects must get out of this self-congratulatory and holier-than-thou mode as soon as possible.
- Architecture schools must make every attempt to connect students with the realities of the profession at an earlier stage of education itself, say by the second year.
- Why should architecture be taught only in English? And why make it sound unnecessarily complex to students and even the outside world? This can happen if schools adopt native language as a mode of communication with students.
- Listen to non-architects talking about architecture. Organize architectural conferences and meetings at a public place, involve non-architects, invite them to talk about architecture, and understand how they look at architecture, the profession and the professionals.
- Look at your social circle — online and offline, high chances there are more architects there. Break the circle, connect with more non-architects.
- Force institutions like the CoA and IIA to take up the professional concerns and also engage actively with the government bodies.
More to follow.
If you have any suggestions to make architecture more relevant to people or society, do share as comments.
