The description of this art work is described as follows in the MOMA website :

“In One and Three Chairs, Joseph Kosuth represents one chair three ways: as a manufactured chair, as a photograph, and as a copy of a dictionary entry for the word “chair.” The installation is thus composed of an object, an image, and words. Kosuth didn’t make the chair, take the photograph, or write the definition; he selected and assembled them together. But is this art? And which representation of the chair is most “accurate”? These open-ended questions are exactly what Kosuth wanted us to think about when he said that “art is making meaning.” By assembling these three alternative representations, Kosuth turns a simple wooden chair into an object of debate and even consternation, a platform for exploring new meanings”

I thought of extending this notion into architecture. As an architect, i could be naive in misreading an ‘object’ from an other field thus adding a new perspective to it. And that is why the title ‘misreading’.

What is that ‘chairness’ which is formed even before it is manifested in these three forms? And what is contaminated in this process of manifestation, in which ‘chairness’ is trying to become an ‘object’, an ‘image’ and ‘words’. Lets see if we can put it an order of dilution : word-image-object, where ‘word’ being closer to ‘chairness’ because it is still in a form of thought. This dilution is what we have been struggling in the architectural design process. Kahn elegantly puts this concern in his essay ‘Form and Design’ that “the first line on paper is already a measure of what cannot be expressed fully.The first line of paper is less”. It is this dilution i am talking about.

How to make the first line less less? Is it possible by grazing more in the meadows of ‘what an object wants to be’ (borrowing from Kahn again) rather than actual design. I think this delay could help. Any delay,which is rigorous, in this age of information is helpful. But what are the questions one is asking in this delayed time. I think the important question would be the need of architecture itself. It is this intellectual discomfort with one’s own medium itself, has created some of the best art like Marcel Duchamp using a mass-produced urinal as a piece of art or Kosuth using three representations of the meaning of the chair as a platform to debate and explore new meanings. There is a lightness in the execution of this art by just assembling pre-existing things, but asking a very deep question of what is art.

Amit Chaudhri, the writer, puts it nicely saying that he chooses the medium of expression latter only to the incubation of the idea. The idea for him could take any shape – a novel, a novella, fiction, non-fiction or even a song (as he is a musician too). He weighs the ideas against the medium, before indulging into one. Again delaying the first line. In the process of choosing the medium, the idea is already becoming better.

And how does one exercise an idea, in a field, which deals already with space as the medium or one should say commodity. What does this limitation of space as medium bring to us? Or to turn the question around what only can space  add to a manifestation of an idea. Wouldn’t be nice to ask this question at the beginning of every project or at any beginning. What if this question delays the first line? And the first line in turn delays the making of space, which is in any way circumstantial.

So to conclude and to suspend a little more on this naivety , if you are the ‘chairness’, what would you want to be – an image, an object or words.

By Guest Writer – Madhuri Rao,

Madhuri teaches at RVCE, Bangaluru.

As a culture in general and being academicians in particular we often pine for students/everyone to read and explore the written word for it has empowered us and many of our likes. We encounter many excuses and mostly credible ones to this resistance. Often it is a lack of time or procrastination, which is chronic – partly in our case as well. At the same time, difficulty in understanding and jargon can also be a buzzkill.

Reading in general and reading the thought/s behind the making of architecture/design/art is integral to our thinking, and has decisively sensitized our responses and lent perspective to our thoughts. This post is a step in that direction, to guide and read in a way to interpret better.

During the course of our post graduate program we were fortunate to have had Prof. Sebastiano Brandolini visit and interact with us over the course of a week for an elective. The premise was to discuss prevalent, valid and contesting ideas with respect to seminal texts that represent them (see poster). However, for us the biggest take away from this interaction was Prof. Brandolini’s methodical understanding on how to read theory books – a framework of 19 questions to understand a book better.

Questions generated by a theory book

1. Why does a theorist make a book rather than something else?
2. What was publishes just before or just after or during? What was the cultural milieu?
3. Which travels were made for the book?
4. Is it primarily illustrated by photos, drawings, sketches, projects or what else?
5. Who is the book intended for?
6. Is it a book to read, look, or leaf through?
7. What is the relationship between words and images?
8. Does the book contain a polemic?
9. What importance does the graphic design have in conveying its meaning?
10. How would you describe its logic?
11. Can one identify 5 fundamental clue-words?
12. What does the cover actually say? How do the different editions vary?
13. Does the theory also presuppose a design method?
14. Is it possible to spell the differences between: a theory book, a history book, a monograph, a handbook, a catalogue, an illustrated book, an interactive book?
15. What does a theory need to convey its message and make itself evident?
16. Can a theory book be without illustrations?  Can it be a narrative?
17. Might one suggest good synonyms to the word “theory”?
18. Would it be possible to transfer a theory into a conceptual diagram?
19. Does such a thing exist, as an anti-theory book?

We have since applied this method and appropriated it to gain structure, perspective and deconstruct books, movies, art, architecture and similar modes of expression. While doing so it shed light on many aspects that remain hidden in the framework unless applied to some set of ideas/ processes or modes of expression. The questions inadvertently form a framework to understand the expression, that is  true to its maker’s intention. It serves as a domain or a specific lens within which the expressed is to be understood in its original context.

The nature of the questions are probing and help create a hypothetical web of influences that the maker was subject to – acquaintances, biases, tradecraft, audience, research, intentions, propaganda, underlying logic and everything that went into setting the stage for creation/expression.

However, this analytical checklist does not limit other forms of interpretation which may not have dwelled in its original premise. In fact, in the process of delving into the questions, it opens up many subordinate issues/matters/ themes for further understanding of the overall subject or to diversify into new territories.

Alternately this model has helped in the conception, development and manifestation of a single idea by the principle of reverse engineering. Working through each of the questions, layers the idea with more value till it in-turn becomes a construct of considerable depth. Also, maybe not in the same order as the framework, these underlying ideas have the ability to give structure to the construct – from part to whole.

Theory is not prescriptive and evidently, this framework is not a foolproof method. It is rather a guide to understand a theoretical stand – implemented by translation of an idea, through different media and its manifestation as a logical conclusion to the process.

Today, we find ourselves on a sticky wicket and the emergence of social media feeds the system. Like/dislike/follow/share, ratings, instant responses, rule the roost and make or break careers/spirit/passions/goodwill. We believe that an idea cannot be validated nor can a value judgment be passed, without having understood it in the domain it is exercised in and with the internal logic that it operates – whether it is a book, movie, art or a nascent idea.

Notes

Image Credit : Baudrillard’s shelves by Olivier Roller

Orhan Pamuk, My Name is Red

1. Seeing. Thinking. Drawing. Cyclic nature of these words and their meanings seemed to be framework for his thinking. It is also name of his wonderful blog (https://www.frankching.com/wordpress). A great source to access his ideas and great clips of his process videos of sketching.
   .       

   

2. Draw small. Concentrate on essentials. He said five small drawings are better than one large drawing. By drawing small one has to pick what to focus and what to leave out. Both acts equally important in the drawing. The sketch below is of the Jayalakshmi Vilas at Mysore. The actual size is not more than 2″ tall.
3. Draw slow. Allows one to observe things better.
4. Fundamentals. Gauge the composition by hand measurement. Make sure to get the horizon line right.  Transfer the proportion to paper. Discern the foreground, middle ground and background. Start filling the details in the same order. Never forget the fundamentals of drawing.
5. Principle of Contrast. In his own words “I want to expand on the idea of contrast—the discernible distinctions in line weight, tonal values, textures, details, and even relative position on a page—that is essential to avoiding blandness and giving life to a drawing. …how the visual tension between the two contrasting elements or areas contribute to the composition of a drawing.” (To read more from his post: link)
6. Frugality. He spoke less and drew more. His shoulder bag can act as an analogy here. It had an umbrella (when it rained unexpectedly on that day, only he had an umbrella), half litre water bottle, 2 sketchbooks, an I-pad, a golf cap. a tissue paper ( to wipe off the falling rain drops of the sketchbooks). The size of the bag was just enough not to disturb him sketching, even if the bag is hanging on shoulder.
7. Restraint. He was consciously aware when to stop drawing and how much to draw (like how much details on the tree). I was surprised to see, for expert in drawing like him, to be uncertain in the drawing process.
8. Abstraction. All drawings are abstraction, as they are all illusions of converting a three-dimensional view to 2D. And diagrams are scaffolding to hang ideas.
9. Do it. He quoted the Nike ad ‘Just do it’.  He talked about how the ‘Architecture Graphics’ book happened. The collection of handouts which he gave the students of his class had an opportunity to get published. In 2 weeks, with the aid of .7 mm mechanical pencil and eraser shield, he flushed out a full book. The beginning of his publishing career began on by just ‘doing’.
10. Act without striving. When asked, was he aware how many copies of ‘Form Space and Order’ was sold. He recalled a Chinese quote, which talked about acting without striving. This phrase as well could summarise his personality.

Notes

All the sketches are extracted from his blog. All the credits belong to him

The link to the online lecture he gave at University of Washington from which the first image is clipped  (https://vimeo.com/33296611)