The Aesthetics of change.

i was going thru my google doc archives, and found this piece i had written for a real estate magazine about 3 years ago... cant remember why i didnt post it online earlier, or why i am doing it now... just one of those things where i like to put thigns out again after a long. its like trying to bring back a joke no one thought was funny then, and seeing if they find it funny now....

The
Aesthetics of change.
 
 Karthik Natarajan

Architecture has always been about expressions. Through Pyramids, we reflected our desire to be remembered. The Greek took great pains in forming an architectural aesthetics system so as to get building aesthetics to reflect a sense of grandeur. The buildings they built in function also reflected their ideas of culture, class, politics, religion and leisure. Architecture then was a privileged art and an extension of sculptures skill and talent to make sculptures with spaces enclosed. The cathedrals that came about in the later ages also showed a strong sense of visual character so as to reflect the standing that religion held, or was expected to hold in its days. Architecture then moved on from becoming just a means of external expressions, but through spatial order within the buildings as well, hierarchy of use, the ideas of exclusion and elite were reflected. Not just in western cultures, even in ancient India, we started building larger campuses around temples, with layers of exclusion and order, which would reflect our class distinction system prevalent through ages. Richer the community, larger and grander the scale of buildings.

According to architect Lebbius Woods, the French revolution failed in its intent of drastically changing the society as it did not accompany with a stronger architectural expression. In his words, “the French revolution failed because it installed itself in the buildings of the royalty it overthrew”. With a promise of new social order, a new architectural order must ensue, or the ideas become incomprehensible.

Each time that a successful shift in social systems has occurred, architecture has reflected the change through change in style. When there was change from the Greek social culture to a Christian culture, the style and nature of expression in built form also changed visibly. We moved from an ordered system of design, to a more imposing, decorative and layered system. The church became the center of the society and not the kings. Through renaissance, the age of logic and reason, architecture started taking on a closer to classic order again. During the industrial revolution as well, architecture and planning became more transparent and approachable, as opposed to the previous systems which were more exclusive. The modernist changed the aesthetics according to what they felt best reflected the needs and ideals of a progressive society. The post-modernist then reflected what they felt was the change needed. Each order of building aesthetics, thus has contributed significantly towards its function. Form follows function is only half true now. Function also significantly follows form.

Working towards larger goals of a sustainable future and how architecture can bring about change, it is worth reflecting upon the visual language that these buildings have, and how what we do as design measures are expressed to those who inhabit the space within. May be the sustainability of a new design methodology also requires a considerable change in its aesthetics as well for it to be widely accepted. A reflection of the design intent of the built environment, which lends the building the character it needs to express, not just make pretty pictures, but also bringing about change.

Quoting Philip Johnson, “All architecture is shelter, but all great architecture is the design of space that contains, cuddles, exalts or stimulates the person experiencing it”.

many to many cities.

http://www.ted.com/talks/clay_shirky_how_cellphones_twitter_facebook_can_make_history.html

this lecture primarily demonstrates as the shift in public media from a one-to-one (telephone) and one-to-many (newspapers, televisions, radio... ) to a many-to-many medium. and demonstrates this through the recent chinese earthquake, and the way news propogated. he says "in order for any media to become widespread, the technology needs to get boring" people using twitter, facebook, chatrooms etc have become so much the norm that we can easily put up our views on a public forum.

if we replaced media with planning. the principles are the same. ancestrally, planning has been a 'one-to-many' operation. it has come from the 'planner' to the 'people' never have we really had a dialogue. surveys and interventions are the tools we use today for feedback, but what if we had a system in place that would give us a 'feed-front' (for lack of a better term) what if we could use the open platform to get users (in this case residents of the area) to plan their own locality. essentially assuming that planning is organization of a finite number of resources within a finite area. which means it is a matter of distribution and not creation. the intangibles like the socio-cultural flavors, are better catered to by the 'non-experts' as they live and breathe the area.

in visual terms it would be like mapping a wiki over a finite area, non experts come in and edit pages, collectively they can then map the desires, fears, aspirations of the region under consideration.

thereby instead of an outsider coming/observing the region for a definite length of time and then planning for it, we could now get residents, who have been soaked
in the social fabric, to plan their own regions.

there by making the planner a medium of interpreting this directory of social desires such received, instead of the modernist version of 'god'.