“Critical thinking is the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skilfully conceptualizing, applying, analysing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action.” Having said this, let us now enact the act of “critical thinking” on one of the most fascinating and arguable contexts of architecture.
It is a paradox that every individual architect or student of architecture, has some or the other day, been in the theoretical explanatory classes on adopting concepts in the design projects proposed. Few of the concepts usually preferred are form based while few are function based. It could also be adopted right from the roots of architectural science, be it scales, geometry, anthropometry, symmetry, interlock, repetition, void, contrast, etc. Concepts were and still are taken with reference to the shape or functional properties of elements like leaves, profiles of various objects, etc. To be precise, any materialistic or non-materialistic subject is and was being taken as the concept. Keeping apart all the theoretical data inferred on using concepts in design, it has been high time to think critically if a design fails without the existence of a concept. In a design, may it be the smallest possible shack; it still demands the basic elementary considerations in terms of circulation, ventilation, lighting and the level of comfort. For a design to be effective and functional, it for sure requires all the above mentioned and unmentioned concepts to have a vital role. Hence it could be understood that the selection of a random concept and a rapid development of design attains less efficiency when compared to that of the one which has been through various levels of thought processes and subsequently substantiated parametric analysis. Hence in a design process, adopting a concept drastically narrows down, not only the creativity, but also does it limit the quantum of imagination which could be exerted in, by foreshortening to stick to the arena of the adopted concept. In practicality, it could be observed that a project gets bottle-necked and limited by many factors in and around the site; in which case, no real concept would be in need rather than logical reasoning to the basic requirements.
Now I intend to contradict my previous views by taking the stance of a devil’s advocate. The marvel and glory of Lotus Temple (India) could never ever be neglected, for it is a conceptualized piece of revolutionary glory in the books of architecture. No assertion could be denied when it is referred as an example for the process of adoption of concept in the field of architecture. Irrespective of its construction cost and the quantum of workmanship it absorbed, it continues to be one of the notable and remarkable architectural fame of the nation. Not only is this so with Taj Mahal, but also with many very other distinct, astonishing and sensational structures around the planet. Having understood this, we not being prejudice, could get to know the various phases of conceptualization that has been in architecture. Hence, concepts do play a vital role in the field of architecture when considered and observed from this particular perspective of view. At this gesture, I would like to open it up to the readers, in a diplomatic fashion, in judging the self-contradicting argument. Stepping back to square one, ARE CONCEPTS IN ARCHITECTURE REQUISITE?
(Note: This article may be understood subjective and hence I request all the readers to understand it so in good spirits.)
It is a paradox that every individual architect or student of architecture, has some or the other day, been in the theoretical explanatory classes on adopting concepts in the design projects proposed. Few of the concepts usually preferred are form based while few are function based. It could also be adopted right from the roots of architectural science, be it scales, geometry, anthropometry, symmetry, interlock, repetition, void, contrast, etc. Concepts were and still are taken with reference to the shape or functional properties of elements like leaves, profiles of various objects, etc. To be precise, any materialistic or non-materialistic subject is and was being taken as the concept. Keeping apart all the theoretical data inferred on using concepts in design, it has been high time to think critically if a design fails without the existence of a concept. In a design, may it be the smallest possible shack; it still demands the basic elementary considerations in terms of circulation, ventilation, lighting and the level of comfort. For a design to be effective and functional, it for sure requires all the above mentioned and unmentioned concepts to have a vital role. Hence it could be understood that the selection of a random concept and a rapid development of design attains less efficiency when compared to that of the one which has been through various levels of thought processes and subsequently substantiated parametric analysis. Hence in a design process, adopting a concept drastically narrows down, not only the creativity, but also does it limit the quantum of imagination which could be exerted in, by foreshortening to stick to the arena of the adopted concept. In practicality, it could be observed that a project gets bottle-necked and limited by many factors in and around the site; in which case, no real concept would be in need rather than logical reasoning to the basic requirements.
Now I intend to contradict my previous views by taking the stance of a devil’s advocate. The marvel and glory of Lotus Temple (India) could never ever be neglected, for it is a conceptualized piece of revolutionary glory in the books of architecture. No assertion could be denied when it is referred as an example for the process of adoption of concept in the field of architecture. Irrespective of its construction cost and the quantum of workmanship it absorbed, it continues to be one of the notable and remarkable architectural fame of the nation. Not only is this so with Taj Mahal, but also with many very other distinct, astonishing and sensational structures around the planet. Having understood this, we not being prejudice, could get to know the various phases of conceptualization that has been in architecture. Hence, concepts do play a vital role in the field of architecture when considered and observed from this particular perspective of view. At this gesture, I would like to open it up to the readers, in a diplomatic fashion, in judging the self-contradicting argument. Stepping back to square one, ARE CONCEPTS IN ARCHITECTURE REQUISITE?
(Note: This article may be understood subjective and hence I request all the readers to understand it so in good spirits.)
No comments:
Post a Comment