Many a fellow architect I know look down upon the work of interior design, the job of shaping one's immediate environments, homes, work spaces & others. As described by many of our responsible & leading seniors in the profession, Interior Design is the work that pollutes the pure space of architecture, thought & production in the offices of architects.
One. The council of Architecture puts it very nicely, where it describes this work as Interior Architecture and not as that of decoration and design. It invests an ideology through the nomenclature that is an important responsibility on the shoulders of the members of the discipline.
The one thing that I have come to realise after designing about 11 homes & 3 work-spaces is that the job of the architect is really just to design environments suited to the nature of occupation of space. The nature of the designed environment has a direct impact on its occupants (I say this with the confidence of having worked in two offices and having designed mine recently). Thus, I have taken a liking to the term 'Interior Architecture'.
Two. Discouraging young architects from taking up these jobs is irresponsible. It is difficult for just anyone to make it in this city as an architect (that's right, no capital A). The only jobs available in the field are those of Interior Architecture works. The work cut-out for architects is just that, as they are cut-out of the design and build processes at play within the city which are driven mainly by the economy. Sure, one might argue about new roles that one can adopt, but not everyone can afford to live here and have a philanthropic practice or have a really rich client base, and therefore build expensive homes outside. As Philip Johnson is known to have said, " There are only three ways of becoming a big Architect, 1.You are born rich. 2.You marry rich 3.There is no other way."
So, for those of us who are content at leading ordinary lives in Mumbai, Interior Architecture is the only source of income.
Three. Architectural work is a cultural production. The architect therefore cannot take to Tom Foolery and resort to hogwash. This pretentiousness and publicity can only take the work to the point before the bubble bursts and the shallowness of the mind is exposed for the world to see.
Four. The new 'young' practices that are surviving are the ones which are small, that have dedicated, enthusiastic & exciting leadership (note: the hogwash mentioned earlier do not count). These are small firms operating out of small spaces & with limited staff. These practices sustain mainly through an array of Interior Architecture projects. They spend their resources and time in really enjoying research works (urban design, product design, etc) & architecture projects which come after years of being in the field. These are the leaders of tomorrow.
The older guys on the other hand, are interested in the production of a labour force that will work in offices on their institution projects and compound walls all over the country.
One. The council of Architecture puts it very nicely, where it describes this work as Interior Architecture and not as that of decoration and design. It invests an ideology through the nomenclature that is an important responsibility on the shoulders of the members of the discipline.
The one thing that I have come to realise after designing about 11 homes & 3 work-spaces is that the job of the architect is really just to design environments suited to the nature of occupation of space. The nature of the designed environment has a direct impact on its occupants (I say this with the confidence of having worked in two offices and having designed mine recently). Thus, I have taken a liking to the term 'Interior Architecture'.
Two. Discouraging young architects from taking up these jobs is irresponsible. It is difficult for just anyone to make it in this city as an architect (that's right, no capital A). The only jobs available in the field are those of Interior Architecture works. The work cut-out for architects is just that, as they are cut-out of the design and build processes at play within the city which are driven mainly by the economy. Sure, one might argue about new roles that one can adopt, but not everyone can afford to live here and have a philanthropic practice or have a really rich client base, and therefore build expensive homes outside. As Philip Johnson is known to have said, " There are only three ways of becoming a big Architect, 1.You are born rich. 2.You marry rich 3.There is no other way."
So, for those of us who are content at leading ordinary lives in Mumbai, Interior Architecture is the only source of income.
Three. Architectural work is a cultural production. The architect therefore cannot take to Tom Foolery and resort to hogwash. This pretentiousness and publicity can only take the work to the point before the bubble bursts and the shallowness of the mind is exposed for the world to see.
Four. The new 'young' practices that are surviving are the ones which are small, that have dedicated, enthusiastic & exciting leadership (note: the hogwash mentioned earlier do not count). These are small firms operating out of small spaces & with limited staff. These practices sustain mainly through an array of Interior Architecture projects. They spend their resources and time in really enjoying research works (urban design, product design, etc) & architecture projects which come after years of being in the field. These are the leaders of tomorrow.
The older guys on the other hand, are interested in the production of a labour force that will work in offices on their institution projects and compound walls all over the country.
No comments:
Post a Comment