Re-evolution in architecture

They could be spoken together, as one, or differentiated on the basis of literal scrutiny. Evolution and revolution. These two words are distinct in understanding. Evolution is gradual, prolonged and ever happening. There can be no substantial difference in a shorter period of time. Revolution is sudden, it changes scenarios rapidly. But these act simultaneously. Evolution of courage and awareness in Indians brought a revolution of independence from the British. Collaboration of these terms are the pillars of development for architecture also. But the relationship gets slightly revamped.

Architecture is a discipline that has juxtaposed these bordering words. It has evolved over eras and revolutionized the society. It was the cause, and it put up the effects. The Bauhaus was eroded by internationalism which got beneath post-modernism. Adding to the attributes, evolution is considered to be irreversible due to its extended span. Similarly, we’ve seen the chronology of architecture ranging from the prehistory to structural expressionism. But who is to say that this advancement never took a step back for further evolutions. Neoclassicism was that chapter of the timeline that was formed by retreating back to classicism. Even today, we could see buildings reflecting a reverse evolution. This is the beauty of architecture. It has been so unique and refined at all its stages that evolving, what was in the past, could be revolutionary as well.

Equally important are the impacts of architecture. Its impacts on a society, a culture, a school of thought, on people and his surroundings. For example, LIKs Assembly building in Dhaka insinuated a sense of democracy in the people of Bangladesh. Gehry’s Guggenheim took modernism to a next level, Zaha’s parametric designs speak out grandeur as much as Didi Contractor’s vernacular building practices do. Every type is a reflection of thoughts and a contribution towards evolution. Speaking about architecture in the context of ecology, its contribution although critical and mandatory seems to be lost in the shadows of splendor. We are more concerned as how it looks rather than how it functions. Indigenous practices have a tremendous capacity of revolutionizing the construction techniques. Climate and native materials should be carefully studied. For instance, the Druk white lotus school in Ladakh has been so carefully designed with respect to the site climate and the available materials. The entire orientation and fenestrations have been designed in a similar way. It makes a very clear point to the people who want to change the building styles of Ladakh. Many other eminent architects have made such similar contributions. Tadao Ando, the self learned Japanese architect has been practicing on the lines of critical regionalism too. Shigeru Ban, is the name take takes paper tube construction famous. His works reflect the words of Philip Johnson, “All architecture is shelter.” The innovation he brought to our profession has made it possible to look beyond concrete and glass. The cardboard tubes are waterproof, fireproof and strong enough, with these he has been able to provide shelter to millions of people who suffered impromptu homelessness. Ken Yeang, the architect who has been named as one of the persons who could save the planet, has combined our profession wholly with ecology. Famous for his notion, he considers himself as an ecologist first and second an architect.

All these people and countless others are penetrating through the closed box to rise to an equation where our profession is equivalent to healing our planet. Architecture is mingled in the yarn of its social consequences. It is revolutionary when it addresses to its people warmly. Georges Bataille , the French intellectual states that ‘ Architecture not only reflects the politics of an epoch, but also has a marked influence on the social’. The debates over architecture and politics of a society is based on semantic readings. For instance, F.L Wright and Vincent Scully couldn’t manage to relate these aspects, neither could Aldo Rossi, but still they persisted in an attempt to define the architecture of democracy. Their claim had internal inconsistencies because a single architectural era couldn’t define the political context. Classical architecture was shared by Greek democracy and Italian Fascism. This refers to the fact that architecture is not dominated or ruled by politics, it simply changes its metaphysical form to what the society demands. Pyramids, once a symbol of dictatorship now stands as emblems of strength and grandeur.

People are envisioned as the creatures upholding the society and the self, modifying from time to time in order to survive. So do the buildings that we create. The mainframe remains the same but its allegorical meaning changes gradually as it evolves based on the status quo. But that doesn’t mean that they do not represent the times to which they belong. It’s a dialogue that works either ways. Architecture has had a unique way of associating and communicating to its time. And that should be the mantra too.

For its Fall season of Architecture events 2015, The Royal Academy’s working theme was Architecture and Freedom, where Patrick Schumacher posits that ‘completing work in countries like China, Azerbaijan, Mubarak’s Egypt and Gaddafi’s Libya, especially if it’s a cultural project, should be viewed as a potential boon to human rights and not overt support of injustice’. We have a power of delivering freedom by putting it up as a silent language in front of the people. The perusal of Louis Sullivan’s quote ‘ Form follows Function’, has a much deeper connotation. Form refers to the extravaganza we see today, the cliché that higher is better for a city to be put on a map, that tedious shapes would become famous. Functioning should be such that it directs us towards the motto of the building. Like, building democracy, ending regimes, considering the dying planet ecology, pondering on a new world free of mundane conventions and routine planning. A space should speak for itself, a user should be able to understand it in the one way designed. It should respect the constraints posed to it, be it financial, regionalist, ecological or psychological. There are enough evidences when mere monitory reasons were the cause of the failure of a project, like the much debated Tokyo National Stadium. The blame game didn’t hold solutions for either party. But the issue leads us to the rising problems of perplexity in our profession.

These conundrums are the steps in our growth. The focus is on the result of our evolution until now. Let not these difficulties stop us from moving towards the greater aspects that architecture provides. The theories and the perceptions have led us till here. The critical analysis will repeatedly take us to the exact place from where we started. We hold a power in our progress, a power of revolution through evolution. Evolution, that is constant and the one which is gradual. The one that can influence the society, the politics, the psychologies, the eras, the histories and the prospects. Let’s combine the past, the present and the future to dissolve how we evolved and build notions on the imagery of a re-evolution.