15 November 2019
The lecture focused on ‘Change’ as an important idea in shaping both design practice and its impact on the wider social, political and cultural contexts.
We were asked to discuss events in our practice that might have led to a change in our approach or methodologies towards our work. While Wooli and I agreed that both our concepts were based mostly on impromptu ideas, inspirations and thoughts, and executed in new and old methods (that seemed fascinating in the moment); there were many insightful incidents reported by my peers in the group discussion. Chalkie revealed that being presented with a pet dog made her move out of her studio much more, allowing her to absorb the outside world of nature, people and landscape. Size restrictions in Hanna’s case directed her toward smaller sized artworks, which (might have) informed her overall art practice. Brooke felt that drawing on the ipad made her tools more accessible for random moments of inspiration, as opposed to being able to create artworks only within the confines of a studio space.
We briefly discussed Postmodernism and opposing viewpoints on it, while Nathan, Aleya and Matt discussed important events that impacted their respective practice. Whiskey’s talk on her previous practice in Guangzhou, China, made me appreciate her effort to find her position in her field, by trying out all roles, whether at the forefront of performance, or in doing research that informed the broader impact of the work. The concept of ‘Playback’ that her group engaged in, was especially meaningful to me, since it gave back to the community where it picked up the story from. She explained that it was important to consider the impact on the community itself, more than just presenting a story to the wider society, which might raise awareness, but might not help solve the problem itself. When asked how changes impacted the wider social, cultural and political context, Wooli and I discussed designers like Vivienne Westwood and Olafur Eliasson, who have used their practice and approaches to their work, in raising awareness and working towards issues of climate change and social equality. It made me want to look at some new, impactful ways in which I could approach my own practice.
Next, we mapped in groups, processes, approaches, methods and models that were important to our respective practices, relating them to the wider social, political and cultural contexts. This exercise made us question the impact of our work on its context, while also inspiring us to think about what kind of change we wanted to bring , and in which area within a larger context.
I thought about these during the next task question, which asked us to think about what changes we would like to incorporate in our own practice, relating them to wider contextual issues. In terms of my concepts and ideas, I hope to create more socially relevant work, aiming at impacting others positively. I feel that most of my previous work has either been in isolation from my prospective audience, or has not addressed ‘real’ needs of ‘real’ people. I do feel that my approach is not typically ‘problem solving’ and I might not find creative fulfillment in attempting to solve pressing issues of the day (back to Architecture practice) but I still could engage with people and impact them positively through my conceptual approach. One area that I have been thinking about repeatedly, is the idea of generating dialogue through my work, and promoting a sense of individual thought and opinion in areas of my country where the mob mentality narrows avenues, restricts growth and discourages independent opinion. I acknowledge my respect for activism towards issues of social and political importance, but am at the same time, concerned about the rampant ‘blind following’ of religious, social and political propaganda, which poses further threats to safety, privacy and justice as basic civil rights in India. By allowing people to engage with, and interpret individually, a tangible idea in the public space, I feel that I might be able to promote expression as well as individual interpretation, which, as a potential collaborative project somewhere down the road, might help free people from the need to agree or disagree or align with established groups in power. I also feel that my city, needs to promote more artistic expression in the public sphere. Chandigarh revels in its heritage status, having being designed and planned by Le Corbusier after all. However, brutalist architecture and modernist concepts governing even the more contemporary buildings and public sculptures suggest either a lack of diversity of thought or a restriction in artistic expression in the public sphere. Within the context of family-oriented-households, Chandigarh has become a somewhat ’empty-nest’ city, which I believe is partly because of the lack of avenues that restriction poses for its educated youth. Within the bounds of Aesthetic legislation, I hope that the city would incorporate new ideas and styles, given the high quality art and architecture education imparted within schools conceived by Corbusier himself.
With respect to my processes, I would like to develop my research methods, presentation and visualization skills in an attempt to engage with my audience during the early stages of design and execution. Using audience response, I would like to develop and refine ideas, into a more responsive end product.
The afternoon ADAS session introduced us to Critical Thinking and Critical writing as means of research. Through a repeating cycle of Description, Analysis and Evaluation, we were asked to approach writing as a well-reasoned, logical and reflective exercise. On the basis of 5 parameters, we have been asked to critique a contemporary practitioner’s practice, developing an independent opinion on their methods, approaches, works and paradigms.
design factory 