It is that time of the year when minds race towards outlining a vision for communicating Landscape Architecture to undergraduate level students.
Vision is a very loaded term.
The Undergraduate student today is definitely better exposed to the subject - usually placed in Sem V and VI in Mumbai. Many colleges follow a programme which is dramatically different from that of my time- 10 years ago. The subject is no longer taught as a rendering exercise which was horticulture biased- beautification focused with a predilection for amoeboid and curved geometry. Yet, there is a unanimous consensus amongst faculty in Mumbai on the lack of drawing discipline and the resultant weak resolution of layered design. By layered design I am simply referring to the physical layers usually present in a typically comprehensive landscape drawing- arboreal, textural, and spatial.
Nevertheless, there are questions that crop up and the answers change now and then.
Should Slope analysis be taught in the same manner as it is meant to in the Landscape Masters course? In the Masters course, a meticulousness Slope Analysis has bearing on other site analysis components and site planning factors. The intention is to probe in depth, the various interlinks between the topics of slope, aspect, drainage geology, vegetation etc. In the Undergraduate, it is my view that distilled insights on such matters should be communicated, and the candidate allowed to explore the constraint- in an architectural manner if chosen by them, rather than making them cringe and crib while doing a slope analysis plan.
For sake of argument, let's assume that someone may want to pitch steep slopes and make parts of the site appear like the bastions of Tughlakabad. The point of departure here would be to allow this as a concept…and then ask questions like How much? What next? How does it reconcile with spatial experience of the site and the architecture?
Rather than a dismissal in the form of an “Of course not!” a "What Next" kind of trigger has the potential to make the candidate think Creatively and Responsibly. It also pushes the faculty further in answering challenging questions that may come their way.
The line of thought that architecture students should be exposed to the link between Nature and the evolution of Cities, does not seem to find many takers in the student as well as the teaching fraternity. For one, the dedication required towards documentation and analysis is not always an exciting prospect for all. Two, everyone thinks that a city like Bombay has lost its natural landscape legacies. Three, the realization that all large scale studies MUST end in design is a glass ceiling waiting to be shattered. The last one is true for faculty and student alike.
The biggest roadblocks towards making candidates take a serious note of Landscape Architecture in Mumbai is the fact that we do not have a Viva Voce at the end of the Semester/ year. The knowledge that you cannot really flunk the subject (unless you have a bad attendance, that too along with two more subjects) gives an unwanted patina of “laborious waste of time” to the studio sessions.i-Phones and i-Pods provide a refuge to many in those hours of studio and theory. Secondly- the exams are a really dumbed down inspection of the subject. One can actually commit notes to memory and purge them in the exam and achieve great marks. YET most course instructions somehow gravitate towards this as their final objective. This HAS to change into something more insightful.
The Final exam should just be an instance where a candidate can draw upon exposures to Art, Science, Architecture, Cities etc to formulate a point of view. In this regard there are many things to learn from the course of Humanities. Sadly, this subject too is on the wane and has become an annexure to the subject of Architectural history.
The lack of good visual documentation (books/movies/ lectures/ slides) on Landscape Architecture is another roadblock that needs addressal, if the spirit of the subject has to be communicated. Most colleges have between 10-35 books on the subject if we do not club all books on trees and shrubs under Horticulture. A world view is necessary. How many Landscape Architects and Significant works can a student name at the end of the year is not a bad benchmark in my opinion.Yes it straddles the realm of "name dropping", so what?
The following constitute a personal wish-list towards communicating Landscape Architecture:
Sites have intrinsic datum that varies as scales change. Unlike a room Land is never flat.
Sites have textures- though not always evident.
Textures can be introduced and they can be ephemeral and not necessarily vegetal
Cutting trees is not the wisest decision
Orienting buildings for sun/ shade /wind is not as difficult as it sounds.
All vegetation takes time to grow. Ready Effect planting is not a sustainable practice all the time.
On site vegetation/ scrub is not a necessarily evil waiting to be burned.
Cutting trees is not the wisest decision
Orienting buildings for sun/ shade /wind is not as difficult as it sounds.
All vegetation takes time to grow. Ready Effect planting is not a sustainable practice all the time.
On site vegetation/ scrub is not a necessarily evil waiting to be burned.
It is OK to have vegetation in your architectural site plans
Detaining water on site is a potent option.
Exploring the nature of the site’s subsurface layers- soils, rocks, water etc. can be fun.
History of gardens has contemporary relevance in good and bad ways.
American and European (open) spaces have different climates, hence their treatments are different.
Giving up on attempting something different simply due to our collective social indiscipline in the use of outdoor spaces is the easy way out.
Detaining water on site is a potent option.
Exploring the nature of the site’s subsurface layers- soils, rocks, water etc. can be fun.
History of gardens has contemporary relevance in good and bad ways.
American and European (open) spaces have different climates, hence their treatments are different.
Giving up on attempting something different simply due to our collective social indiscipline in the use of outdoor spaces is the easy way out.
Sometimes simple intents towards cohesion, coherence and de-cluttering are more powerful than anything else.
Perhaps upon graduating and entering Practice, some of them will inject that much needed ZING into the profession by demanding more instructive and intense participation from practising Landscape Architects.
Inshallah!
the lay man's perception of landscape design,i believe, is all about the green relief on the site.
ReplyDeleteand perhaps bcoz of the exams/syllabus/ strategy to pass safely, etc etc..the propagated notion of our dear fellow mr.LD among a large no. of architectural students ,too , seems to be somewhat that. didnt u realise the default/sub-conscious 'Landscape' design layouts that most of my classmates had come up with. zig-zags, pathways, and u know what i mean...
having said that, my inherent notions about LD say that Landscape design is the broadest sense of architectural design...where the way ID fits into AD, similarly AD also should be completing the LD jigsaw. instead of AD being separate and LD being about outdoors.
infact i would want to say AD is the more enhanced and complete form of ID. and LD be the designing of landforms and thereby taking into account the articulation of how a spatial formation sits on the landform.
its perhaps similar to the fact that BD and AD cant be different. u cant treat them as 2 different 'subjects' ur learnings or a lack thereof(in my case?) in BD automatically help ur AD/ID/LD.
and while i am at it, its the disillusionment that sets in, in principle when the common perception in the air 'around' becomes about putting in zig zags with a rich colour pallete instead of giving more sense to ur own efforts. all this purely for the sake of convenience and the propagated fundas of passing. add to that 2 faculty members who were on their own churchgate and CST tracks while the 3rd one chose to look and comment on not more than 5 ppl's works. the collective apparent notion of his ego, just took the fizz out.
since this is a personal comment, the fizz went out in me bcoz when he spoke he exuded brilliant knowledge applied with analysis, not to forget the literally burning passion that seemed apparent to me. and then when it ended up with work reviews on just 4-5 ppl and his stand to not take any more classes, brought in the aloofness. disillusionment is more the word.
so i saw it as a classic dono haath se taali bajti hai
situation, talking about the batch of 2008. and all the more disillusionment realizing the attitude of students,me included, i think were more responsible for the failure. sorry for hijacking space.
as for my AD,ID,LD ideas plz point out if there's a jhol, coz as i said u could be the best person to discuss them with.
disclaimer : all views put forth in the comment are solely that of the author and the batch as such holds no responsibility for his views/claims/judgments/etc.
Yes i realize with every batch that i collide with, tht its all about trying to "get done with it". the design devices are just graphical representations that accentuate that.
ReplyDeleteWhat makes me mad, is
1-it is happening in an institution that i respect IMMENSELY becos it encourages its students to think and question convention.
2- the students (i generalize here) knowing this very well yap their way around with design, without focussing on ATLEAST ONE spatial/abstract/functional/engineering/services linked notion. Most batches are a set of pampered kids.
3- with me, its always been an uphill battle trying to push people to discover their best...whether or not they deliver. This is true for my co-faculty and for the batch i am in contact with.
4- i choose to comment on work that either engages me in a joint journey of discovery OR demands my explicit attention to comprehend it becos it has been meticulously constructed without losing essence of the idea or infuriates me. I have stopped doing the 3rd to reduce my blood pressure. U call it ego. i call it preventive therapy.
5- I tend to have favorites very early in the year.it is from them that i expect the most.Most of the time i am disappointed, and trust me...i DO NOT have high standards nor idealistic goals. Remember i told the class...i hated the subject when i was in 3rd yr becos all that was spoken about was planting, curved paths, sandbeds and gazebos.
Coming back to your ID+AD+LD = sense of space,place,event and time.
i distinctly remember your answer to my question "why is landscape a prefix to architecture" and its subsets at the beginning of the year. you have been one of the few who have ventured out with an answer that, in retrospect, i never had at your age, tho no one asked me that question then.
you had mentioned the very essence of what you have written, which i am sure is what you believe in- and you are not wrong at all.
the only bit i wish to add is that not all of landscape architecture forays (interventions) focus on land modulation or creation of space. sometimes, it just clears cobwebs in the mind encouraging it to see issues clearly. the onus is always on the person after that.
surprisingly (or not), basic design is the closest that one gets to landscape design in terms of design instrction .
Regarding overlaps and distinctions, the more one is successful in blurring boundaries, the more difficult it is to categorize. But...resolution is important.e.g. Mandu, Kaufmann house.
the question is, how many of us are willing to discover this?
Lastly, I know you enuff to realise that you speak for yourself, atleast when you talking to me. thats all that i care about. The disclaimer was/ is / will be unecessary.
I do not know if i have managed to answer your query. But thanks for writing in.
Fond regards