The Usable Past
“The child who is not embraced by the village will burn it down to feel its warmth.” — — African Proverb
The last decade or two have seen tremendous changes in the discipline of architectural history. Oppositions, Assemblage and ANY have defined the evermore intense interconnections between history, theory and practice.(1)
Then the journals like JSAH and Journal of Architectural Education have expanded the disciplinary boundaries. Architecture shares historic links with other disciplines. While in the twentieth century, architecture was often seen as a unified form of art, where it constituted integrating all modes of cultural production, even engineering- it has now disintegrated into numerous disciplines with its own philosophy and understanding. Isolating the disciplines in an ambition to reinvent a discipline or giving new energy to architecture’s capacity to think the whole, both within its own sphere and the new complexity that is now unfolding. Advertisements for Architecture (1976–7): was a great series of postcard sized text-image juxtapositions from architect Bernard Tschumi. His ‘introduction’ uses advertising tactics in which to highlight the differences between architectural theory within the academic realm, and its actual disjunctive, luxurious state in reality. Thus the architect must eagerly be in the favor of the process of questioning. It is this quality of questioning which makes it possible for architecture to be an activity rather than a discipline; an activity which has a long future before it because it is so closely bound to the future of the society. I would like to emphasize here that I have always seen architectural history and theory as a method or means or system to study architecture rather than a mere subject.
My earlier research was very much involved with the understanding of historic sacred built forms of South India and how regionalism as a concept played a role in the ancient thought of reinterpreting temple spaces. These spaces are hundreds of years old and the act of temple building was very different then, than what it has become now. Usually, visually, a Hindu temple is a massive sculpted space with no disciplinary demarcations of interiors, exteriors, ornamentation and of structural. It has a sense of entry and is much larger in scale to make it discrete than other settlements-both in terms of stature as well as in ideology. Unlike the temple spaces in Southern India which were expanding horizontally and mirrored the vernacular settlements having a domestic scale-which only begged me to question,” When does a space become a temple?” Is it the objects which determine the place? Is it the spatial quality or the spatial experience? The whole dialogue of the journey from a space to being a place thus opened up. The Place thus reinterprets itself according to the topography, climate and responds to the context.
As Critical Regionalism quotes,
“The fundamental strategy of Critical Regionalism is to mediate the impact of universal civilization with elements derived indirectly from the peculiarities of a particular place.”
It also suggests distinguishing Critical Regionalism and literal attempts to revive the notional forms of lost vernacular. As I look back on the evolution of my work, I understand through these complex temple spaces that there are layers of meanings the poetic architecture; and to solve the pragmatics of architecture is really easy but to transform the pragmatics into the poetic dimension is what makes design a complex process as well as beautiful. The use of wood and locally available black laterite stones; the use of long passages and courtyards makes it a built-form designed inside-out. The creation of exterior elements related to interior spaces and the whole sense of outdoor-indoor continuum as part of a spatial energy wherein darkness was a very important element in realizing the Place. We must be clear about to what end we want to “use” the past, if indeed that is a worthy goal. And I see this incredibly intellectual ideological position in these historic built-forms which is fast becoming residual part of architecture’s humanistic mission.
Every historian should read Nietzsche’s Use and Abuse of History for Life. In this piece, Nietzsche is clear about what he means when he talks about the “use” of history. He believed the purpose of history was to inspire greatness in the present. History should serve life. If a worship of the past began to stifle greatness in the present, history was abused and life was diseased. If, however, the past was historicized to death, if a concern for scientific truth caused historians to reduce greatness in the past to a product of circumstance, then history was also abused and would proclaim along with science, “fiat veritas, pereat vita!” (Let there be truth and may life perish!)
Speaking of studying a built-form in historic context of a certain timeline, culture as well as religion, reading Dr. Sophia Psarra made me realize the concurrence of the aspects she addresses of social meanings, space and form into these Hindu temples. For example, Psarra makes observations like the geometry and building configuration force various degrees of visual restriction on the moving observer. In case of these temples, one needs to understand the spatial characteristics in relation to the user experience. Every temple has a principal deity which is situated in the central sanctum. Perception is what someone perceives on subjective basis. I was more interested in investigating space as objective reality. Susan Lewandowski states that the underlying principle in a Hindu temple is built around the belief that all things are one, everything is connected. The psychological focus is constantly shifted from the deity to the visitor through the entire circulatory pattern. This is physically manifested as spatial transitions in Hindu temples. The approach points lead to a more covered area which also becomes the first focus of the space. The spaces can also be looked as layers wherein each layer brings you closer to the deity. The axiality makes the shrine very prominent even though it’s not revealed as soon as one enters the temple complex. One cannot enter the sanctum directly as one cannot achieve that level of devotion required to enter the shrine. One develops it slowly and gradually through transcendental travelling of his Self. The embedded shrine becomes the spine of the building. The ornamentation also simplifies as we go towards the deity which symbolizes the stripping of all pleasures in order to attain oneness with Him. Psarra’s intention was somewhere to show how restrictions imposed on visual fields by geometry and configuration help create meanings.
Throughout her book, Architecture and Narrative, she insists that there is no dichotomy between the conceptual and the perceptual in architecture. And I do completely agree with that idea, keeping in mind, the Hindu temples. The Hindu temple architecture has sensory as well as intellect dimensions which are very difficult to divorce. It also resonates with what Susan says.
The point being made here is, simply put, criticism is all about seeing.
As John Berger mentions in his book, Ways of seeing, “The way we see things is affected by what we know or what we believe. We never look at just one thing; we are always looking at the relation between things and ourselves.”
In a way everyone is a critic. Everybody has opinions about buildings, however innocent and naïve. But in present times, it is rather dismaying to see almost receding importance of criticism and history in the act of building. Applauding a design or a building is almost a common sight. Nobody is interested in the intent. As I write the African proverb at the beginning of the essay here, criticism is the need of the hour else we will end up burning all that we have in the hallucination of relating with the present. The past causes the present and so the future. As Peter Stearns rightly says in his article for American Historical Association, “History provides a terrain for moral contemplation.” History and criticism are two sides of the same coin leading to a simple awareness.
Looking at Marshall McLuhan’s observatory statement, “We look at the past through a rearview mirror. We march backwards into the future. Yet in McLuhan’s view, if encyclopedias can fully capture the past like a rearview mirror, it begs the question,” what would it be like to drive without one?” (2 )
Studying architecture without history is ending up making buildings which are not in capacity of a serious thought. To start with, looking at temple spaces in depth, I learned a subtle method of translating the physical experience into a written one. Because I had to present a written research, I learned to look beyond the tangibles. I began to associate, connect and relate all the aspects of temple architecture, region and religion- which in turn helps one to not only build opinions but interrogate and delve into deeper intentions of design knowledge.
Even as we document our past achievements, it also contains valuable knowledge for the creation of contemporary culture. In this sense, past is an essential tool for thoughtfully moving forward and a rearview mirror on what Lewis Mumford called, “the usable past”.
Notes:
1 Jarzombek, Mark “The disciplinary dislocations of (architectural) history”, Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians Vol.58, №3, Architectural History 1999/2000 (Sept. 1999) ,pp. 488–493, University of California Press on behalf of SAH
2 Byars, Mel “Foreword: The Design Encyclopedia”, The Design Encyclopedia , Laurence Kind Publishing, London & The Museum of Modern Art, New York (2004)
