Architexturez. wrote: > Do it, because action > must be seen to have been taken, and it’s just too bad if the > international amalgam is a mess. The present will create its own future. >
not sure. i thought we just had future battling future(s) in india? history of architecture, we have ignored for half a century, handful of apologies apart. the present, we deny -- where is the space? all soaked up in a few centres of powers, filled with a few mediocre persons feeding off all that can be had. i think it is just the futures. i do not think it is emulation at core. bhatia's thesis: indian administrators want to copy china or the united states is flawed. i can say from my conversations with two dozen chief architects and higher administrators in last week. styles and types, yes. but basically, at the core of the policy, it is still the indian constitution. historical indian urban space (and that even means villages in india, because historically, indian urban space is the khatra, which does not possess a theory of the 'city' like the west) must be deterritorialized. we are promised this since 1947, it must be unfettered. the question is, can we provide the policy with more powerful solutions? and less delusion? i wonder, for example, how architects got onto that 'humane, housing for the poor' track, and why they preach it, on the count, we had about as much oil in reserve as saudi arabia -- not a poor country, and we have about as much technology of design as anyone if you knew where to look for it. so probably it is time to burn charles correa and drive. design manpower, another story, mckinsey estimates about 15-18% of indian architects are employable by international standards _at the time of graduation_, SPA, the IPU colleges in delhi and other 'top premier' institutes produce about 5-7% employable students. internationally employed architects of a local extraction produce most of the buildings the star architect showpieces are only examples of a state policy, the majority work is done by federated or corporate practices. look at the percentage of indian architects employed by international practices who build in gurgaon, for example, or in china. it is recognized that architecture is a local practice, not in a geographic sense, but in a cultural one. and i can cite two dozen international practices operating in india here. so i do not think it is a problem of emulation, or mimesis. i think it is a problem with the 'top premier' academic organizations in india, who have ignored to supply operative models, modes of practice, theories of architecture for south asia. two more dozen examples of the works of architectural theory cited most in indian court cases and the council of architecture literature can be put here (le corbusier and bauhaus still rule). give the policy powerful models and they will use them. > The trend towards a totally faceless architecture is a global > phenomenon. Compared to what is happening in China, the new buildings of > India are only minor aberrations. Even if the State still appears to be > tied down to its communist political agenda, China’s economy — and > consequently its cities — presses ahead with its modernist vision. > _______________________________________________ in-enaction mailing list http://mail.architexturez.net/mailman/listinfo/in-enaction + Architexturez collaborative at http://portal.architexturez.org/
