Romi Khosla: The Meaning of Culture and the subsequent Architecture Shravan Suresh 2018-19
Romi Khosla: The Meaning of Culture and the subsequent Architecture Before understanding the term modernism with respect to architecture, it is important to understand the context and what it signifies in a country like India. Through Romi Khosla’s report1 on the state of architecture in India, it is evident and an understood fact that Indian contemporary architects are affected by the basic problems in a developing country where perceptions are prejudiced leading to conflict in thought. According to Khosla, the lack of definition and clarity of what is Indian is very vague. Khosla elaborates on this, by saying that in most discussions on Indian contemporary architecture, it usually leads to an understanding of what is Indian and what feels Indian. He’s satirical when he compares this question of what is Indian to something as important as an answer to a question like, how many stars there are in the sky or the number of hair on ones head. He justifies the fact that the varying language in the architecture throughout India is not something that could be defined, but could be called Indian in its contemporary context. Khosla further laments about the lack of critical pondering on contemporary works by architects in India. He says, that people are busy doing their own work in the field but lack the time to critically analyse and write about the architecture. He says: “There are four journals in India that publish architecture - surely a creditable achievement for a third world country. However, none of them contain any significant discourse or critical inquiry. Perhaps the reasons that we haven’t bred our own critics. Perhaps people who train as architects practise it and don’t write about it. Maybe there isn’t enough unemployment amongst architects to guide them into criticism and journalism.”
He says that Indian architecture cannot be specifically classified under any particular ‘ism’ and such things should be associated mainly with respect to a doctrine or a practice. Khosla emphasizes on the greater knowledge of understanding Indian contemporary architecture; he suggests that commentators on architecture need to be more objective in their approach in understanding what is Indian and have a strong central idea to start an argument or a discourse. “At the risk of being accused of having the thoughts of a simpleton, I would say that no critic seems to have found an ‘ism’ to define Indian architecture. Unfortunately ‘ism’ has got tainted with derogatory associations and I would have to protect myself at meetings if I was to be bold enough to ‘ism’ any architect’s work.“ “We don’t seem to be interested in pursuing abstract ideas or ‘isms’. Our collective objective seems to be concerned with placing our work in the stream of authentic buildings that make a historical presence.”
The Indian contemporary architect is a little influenced by the change in culture over time. This causes the current lot of contemporary architects to produce work that’s not necessarily insignificant and it is important for them to know that the western thought is far different from the way we think. He says: “Certainly it was not at all clear whether the architects in India were just producing insignificant buildings or whether our whole concept of architecture is so different from the Western one that there is no shared ground. “
This thought arose when architects would come from all over the world to see Lutyens’ Delhi or stroll around the Mogul monuments. Their curiosity towards the Indian contemporary architecture/buildings was absent, which was a little shocking for Khosla. He blames the media and its power to influence views. He also says that current architecture is way too mediocre to draw any attention towards them. 1
Khosla, Romi. (1991). Mimar 41: Architecture in Development. Current Architecture in India, 20-25. Shravan Suresh | Roll number: 1471 | B.Arch., Mumbai University | Architectural Theory | Semester IX
Romi Khosla believes that contemporary Indian architecture should have a starting point or a direction towards starting a discourse. He says that this would be the key idea or justification by the architect, which is of great importance to Indian architecture on the whole. He says: “It is my contention that the key to understanding contemporary architecture of the Indian civilization lies in discovering the entry point of the architect.”
According to him, the key to understanding Indian contemporary architecture lies in discovering the entry point of the architect. He calls this a shared state of mind. According to him, most contemporary Indian architects have the same entry point. The idea of this shared common thought (state of mind) is different from an architectural style which is of great relevance to conclude the argument on generalizing an ‘ism’ to Indian architecture in the contemporary context. He hence emphasizes a need to invent authenticity, he says: “We don’t seem to be interested in pursuing abstract ideas or ‘isms’. Our collective objective seems to be concerned with placing our work in the stream of authentic buildings that make a historical presence.”
It is hence important to understand what is ours and what is not. Cultures and civilizations grow and constantly evolve as they are constantly taking something from each other. Civilizations borrow from others and give to others and it is in this process of give and take that each civilization, each country, each nation constantly reinvents itself. It defines and redefines itself. The thought of accepting what is alien to us and agreeing to the larger idea of understanding what is our culture is of some relevance. We as individuals need to see what would help us as human beings and accept what would enrich our lifestyle. Bias and prejudice of any sort or form should be discarded as they have only harm to do to us. Hence it is important to evolve and accept, discard and progress.
Shravan Suresh | Roll number: 1471 | B.Arch., Mumbai University | Architectural Theory | Semester IX
2018-19