Monuments

Architecture outlives its creators and transcends many generations and civilizations. The continued presence of historical buildings in our lives creates a dichotomy - a relic reflecting the past sedentary lifestyle of its occupants, dominating a vibrating and chaotic urban space today. Do we celebrate the architecture of the past as a heritage having only tourism potential or do we analyze them for the impact of the built form and the quality of architectural space and seek guidelines for architectural design today?

As Manfredo Tafuri postulated, architectural design and form do not follow a linear pattern, where every new movement replaces the old. It is more of circular pattern where the old forms reappear and merge with the new forms, leading to new configurations and new meanings for each new generation of human society.

It was a similar analysis of the monuments at Ellora by Ajay Kulkarni, a talented young architect and an old friend from Aurangabad, in his presentation at the National Convention of Architects at Nagpur, that came under attack by a disgruntled spectator, who was disturbed in his sleep by a lecture on history he thought was irrelevant.

Of course, saner voices in the auditorium prevailed and the protester had to leave. Apart from being a good-natured person, Ajay is also nonchalant and continued with his presentation. His work is outstanding, and that naturally commands respect, irrespective of whether you do or do not like the logic or the lessons from history he has incorporated in his design.

That brings back the issue of how history is taught at the schools of architecture. Unless we are able to establish its link to the present-day architecture, history would become a tiresome subject indeed. It would then be a boring list of monuments and the kings who made them (with a bit of religious, political and such other background thrown in). No wonder people resent this, and many generations of students have crossed over to the fourth-year architecture with a sigh of relief that they no longer have anything to do with history.

What Ajay was talking about is the history as it exists today for us. We grow up with this backdrop of history surrounding us all over (particularly in India), and it is part of our subconscious. The monuments speak to us (to use the jargon from Ajay's speech), and if you are sensitive enough, you may be able to decipher the language.

All architecture is deliberate - with a sense of purpose. So, when Ajay talked about creating a monument for a freedom fighter - it was not words alone, but a whole imagery of how that person lived and worked, his value system and the force behind his acts of patriotism - and how do we interpret all this in the present context becomes the starting point of architectural design. The attire of the freedom fighter becomes a symbol that can be carried on to the building designed for him and to establish the act of patriotism as a monumental act, it needs to be represented by a monumental structure.

So, it is not the historical monuments per se but their interpretation in the present day, which becomes the issue for architectural design. It is this lesson of history that we need to present as teachers.