stress

Long time no see.

I'm back at vir.mueller, this time as a junior architect. I like the work, and get plenty of responsibility. I think it's a great place to work if you want to practice architecture- but that's just it. I'm not sure (I'm quite sure) I want to. Certainly I don't want to practice only architecture.

I'm interested in so much more. Research, writing, conversation, design, understanding what design can do for people. And as ever, the visual communication of all of this stuff. Layout and editorial and indesign still make me happy.

Graduate school;
aka confusion.

confusion
kənˈfjuːʒ(ə)n/
nounnoun: confusion; plural noun: confusions

1.
uncertainty about what is happening, intended, or required.
"there seems to be some confusion about which system does what"

synonyms:

uncertainty, lack of certainty, unsureness, indecision, hesitation,hesitancy, scepticism, doubt, ignorance; More

antonyms:

certainty

a situation of panic or disorder.
"the guaranteed income bond market was thrown into confusion"

synonyms:

disorder, disarray, disorganization, disorderliness, untidiness, chaos,mayhem, bedlam, pandemonium, madness, havoc, turmoil, tumult,commotion, disruption, upheaval, furore, frenzy, uproar, babel, hurly-burly, maelstrom, muddle, mess, shambles; More

antonyms:

order

a disorderly jumble.
"all I can see is a confusion of brown cardboard boxes"

synonyms:

jumble, muddle, mess, heap, tangle, entanglement, tumble, welter,litter, shambles More

2.
the state of being bewildered or unclear in one's mind about something.
"she looked about her in confusion"

synonyms:

bewilderment, bafflement, perplexity, puzzlement, mystification,stupefaction, disorientation, befuddlement, muddle; More

the mistaking of one person or thing for another.
"there is some confusion between ‘unlawful’ and ‘illegal’"

Many people have told me that confusion isn't essentially bad. At least I'm thinking beyond a pre-destined path. But right now, when in the midst of all this confusion? I just feel horribly stressed and tense and aaaaaaaah.

I want to do many things. How do I choose which of those things to master in?

Also, the etymology:

confusion (n.) 

late 13c., "overthrow, ruin," from Old French confusion (11c.) "disorder, confusion, shame," from Latin confusionem (nominative confusio) "a mingling, mixing, blending; confusion, disorder," noun of action from confundere "to pour together," also "to confuse" (see confound). Sense of "a putting to shame" (a sort of mental "overthrow") is late 14c. in English, while that of "mental perplexity" is from 1590s.

Sense of mingling, mixing, blending of my many, many (ill-defined) goals in life?

***

I've been considering pursuing a masters degree in graphic design for a little while now. I know I don't want to do an M.Arch, and I don't want to do only architecture. I think it's critical to acknowledge the larger field of design, and being in a multi-disciplinary environment where I can learn from everything is very important to me. 

I've always been interested in the graphic arts and visual communication; I've volunteered for projects at school and I really try to focus on articulate presentation of my work. 

I'm also inclined towards teamwork, research, and writing. I want to be a part of discussion and conversation on the relationship between design and society/ culture.

I think successful public discourse is as much about serious content as it is about effective communication. Working on creating a branding and communication strategy for Delhi Dallying has reinforced this. It's made me recognize the ability of good design to involve and engage our audience, and to provoke them to think. It is equally important for me to create content and to be able to successfully present it, often in order to promote the generation of further content.

Much of the work I have done as a student and young practitioner lies at the intersection of my personal interests, and I am deeply concerned with evolving a method of praxis that combines research, design and visual communication. I don't quite know what I want to do in life, but I want to be always learning. I quite possibly want to know everything.

I'm just so confused! What I want is to go to a great, vibrant city, be around brilliant people who are interested in all sorts of things, and I want to learn new skills, to hone my interest into something more practiced and concrete. 

***

I hope to study and better understand the dynamic relationship between the built environment and social behaviour, as well as the effect of society/ culture on the design of spaces.

I believe that architecture is as much a study of people as of spaces. I understand spatial and social fabrics to be interdependent and adaptive. The way we build and the way we live are deeply intertwined and affect and accommodate together. They co-evolve.

As architects and urban designers, we have the ability to add value to the social and physical structures of user-generated cities. However, it is important to first understand and establish connections between the social and urban systems which govern living environments. By making ourselves aware of the richness and complexity of societal and cultural linkages, we situate ourselves in a better informed and more capable position when it comes to making policy and design decisions. I also believe that familiarity with the economic, political and cultural structure of a settlement allows us to place greater weightage on the natural and spontaneous traditional knowledge pool of a community, and encourages us to learn from this resource.

Such an approach is especially critical to the development process of settlements not considered to be traditionally “planned” or “organized.” These settlements form the majority of Indian conurbations; examples include urban villages, “slums” and historical districts. 

***

One good thing:

FINALLY made an online portfolio.

Comments are very welcome.

may we meet again, sooner.

gold

you may have noticed.
i've changed the header image.

what i really wanted was this:
lovelybeautifulawesome

Wall detail from the Rosia Montana Roman Gold Mines in Romania. Wikimedia Commons.

but Blogger doesn't allow you to upload images larger than 300kb, and no variation I resized on psd would meet the requirement and still be be big enough to fill the size / not tile.

oh well.

post script

forgot to mention in my last post.

got new shelves for my room!
at last.

and they look exactly how I imagined.

isabgol and licences

 

Packaging for Sat-Isabgol, which my dad has been having since forever. I think it's brilliant! So retro. Absolutely love the typography. Notice how elements are repeated on both the English and Hindi sides, especially love the 'R' of registered. It's cardboard, and the 'trademark registered' oval is embossed. And the telephone! I don't understand the significance, but I definitely like the style and the detail. Click on the image for a zoomed in view.

__

Got my driving licence! Very impressed by the authority- I gave my test yesterday morning and got it today by 3.30 in the afternoon. The envelope and the licence both have "Drive only if you must: use public transport" displayed quite prominently. And, surprised to note that Delhi Integrated Multi-Modal Transit Systems Limited is a project partner with the Transport Department.

Winning and Losing

Via Steven Heller's daily column at Imprint Magazine.
_
Housing's over! YAY!

_
In the latest issue of the Journal of Landscape Architecture, about the international design competition for the New Museum of Ancient India, Patna:

Five world-leading architectural firms are competing... each with their Indian architect partner firms...:

1.  Coop Himmelblau (Vienna) with ARCHOHM
2. Foster + Partners (London) with C.P. Kukreja & Associates
3. Maki & Associates (Tokyo) with OPOLIS
4. Snohetta (Oslo) with Spacematters
5. Studio Daniel Libeskind (New York) with Morphogenesis

Whoa.
The museum, preliminary budget INR 350 crores, is slated to be operational by mid-2015.

...someone in China or India can do your work more cheaply than you can.

I'm currently reading A Whole New Mind: Why Right-Brainers Will Rule the World (Daniel Pink, 2005), and it's both nice and fucking-annoying at the same time. Pink (imagine having that as your surname) is basically saying that the world is a-changing, that previously looked-down-on 'right-brain' skills (such as creativity, looking-at-the-big-picture, empathy) are going to be more valuable than the traditionally admired 'left-brain' skills (such as logic and sequential thinking). To survive in this scary, topsy-turvy world where design, for example, is a better career option than engineering, law or medicine, we need to apply both sides of our brain- basically, a 'whole' new mind. While I love the title (and the cover, it's neon!), I'm not sure about the book itself.

First of all, my version has a ton of typos and grammatical errors, which I just don't understand. I mean, how could the editors/ proof readers/ whoever let this happen? This is a minor concern, though, and the main reason for my annoyance is quite different.

Pink (I just love using his surname) says -and I guess I agree- that the main reasons for the fall of the left-brainers are Abundance, Asia and Automation. Abundance, because there's so much wealth and so many products that the only things which differentiate one offering from the other is design or marketing or story-telling, and not the function of the product itself. Asia and Automation because, well, now either machines or low-paid workers in India can do the technical boring bits for much less money. So, the only way to survive in such an economy is to adapt and offer services which can't be done by the machines or the low-paid Indian workers.

I started getting annoyed pretty early on, because I kept feeling that Dan was saying (though not stating) that Asian workers were not capable of doing such creative work, that America, UK and Canada were somehow more evolved countries which had already made the shift from the Information Age to the "Conceptual Age". Somewhat irrational, I know, but I just hate the American arrogance or whatever which makes it seem that now the menial and routine work can be outsourced, and whole-brained people must "rise" in the first world for it to maintain its supremacy. This theme recurs throughout the book (I've read till page 183 of 247) and makes me gnaw my teeth every time. I mean, first you promote globalization, because you want a wider market for your products, and then, when globalization also means that you have to compete in the global market for work, then it's a bad thing?

But Pink doesn't really say that. What he's saying is that "we" need to deal with it, and adapt ourselves. Yes, I know, I'm not making much sense, even to myself, and I also know that this book was written in 2005 by an American for Americans and I've already said that I know I'm being irrational. But I really, really hate how Pink goes on and on about Asians (especially Indians) now doing the routine left-brain work. I feel like he's constantly deriding their right-brain capabilities by assuming that Americans are in competition with Asians only for left-brain jobs. This, when everyday I come across so many examples of amazing design work done by Indians, when I hear that the science stream topper from my brother's school is studying design at NID. This is my issue with the book: I think that the whole world is waking up to the power of right-brain thinking, and not just the western, "advanced" world.

By some weird quirk of fate (ha) I came across this article the same day I was feeling all pissed about the book, and the author made me feel better about Americans in general. The author says:

When you say of the Indians, “evidently, the quality is good enough,” I can tell you that yes, it is, and often it is better. There is a lot of design talent beyond our borders — educated, clear thinking, visionary, with great enthusiasm and a tremendous work ethic. To us insular Americans, this may be shocking. Get unshocked, and get ready to play. It’s a good thing. 

and this is the attitude I was looking for, not the let's-develop-new-skills-that-the-Indians-don't-have-so-we-can-maintain-our-domination. Argh, I feel as if I'm being excessively critical again, but I can't help it. And I have to say that in spite of all this, I do think that the book is pretty good, it does talk a lot of sense, and it offers some much-needed advice. I may not love it, but I do like it.

On an aside, Before and After Magazine's "design talks" are pretty interesting. They have some nice free stuff to download/ watch too.

__

Also, came across this neat illustration when image-searching for the book cover:

The artist's "visual notes" for the book.

God knows. Or does he?

This flow of creation, from where did it arise,
Whether it was ordered or was not,
He, the Observer, in the highest heaven,
He alone knows, unless... He know it not.

From the Hymn to Creation, the Nasadiya Sukta, in the Rig Veda.

So, there's no answer. How... quirky.
__

I'm currently reading Introducing Hinduism: A Graphic Guide. So you can blame it for my sudden philosophical slant.

ideo-

Words divide, pictures unite.
and
Words are pictures too.

___

Ideograms and ideographs convey ideas without explicitly stating them.

___

From the Online Etymology Dictionary:

idea
late 14c., "archetype of a thing in the mind of God; Platonic `idea,'" from L. idea "idea," and in Platonic philosophy "archetype," from Gk. idea "ideal prototype," lit. "the look of a thing (as opposed to the reality); form; kind, sort, nature," from idein "to see," from PIE *wid-es-ya-, suffixed form of base *weid- "to see" (see vision). Sense of "result of thinking" first recorded 1640s.

___

From V for Vendetta (2006):

But what of the man? I know his name was Guy Fawkes and I know, in 1605, he attempted to blow up the Houses of Parliament. But who was he really? What was he like? We are told to remember the idea, not the man, because a man can fail. He can be caught, he can be killed and forgotten, but 400 years later, an idea can still change the world. I've witnessed first hand the power of ideas, I've seen people kill in the name of them, and die defending them... but you cannot kiss an idea, cannot touch it, or hold it... ideas do not bleed, they do not feel pain, they do not love... And it is not an idea that I miss, it is a man... A man that made me remember the Fifth of November. A man that I will never forget.

and

Beneath this mask there is more than flesh. Beneath this mask there is an idea, Mr. Creedy, and ideas are bulletproof.

From the V for Vendetta graphic novel by Alan Moore and David Lloyd

Development and Dignity

Warning: long, long rant ahead.

In the fourth year of architectural training, you do only one design project: housing, which is, frankly, large and detailed enough to occupy the entire semester. Every year the faculty decides on a common theme and students try and attempt their own version of it. Last year (or was it the year before last?) the theme was futuristic housing. So everyone tried to make funky forms and what not.

This year we have to design inclusive housing, the meaning of inclusive being not exclusive, but the real debate arises when you try to define it further: inclusive to what extent? What do we want to achieve: social inclusivity -different races, ethnicities, genders, ages, disabilities- or economic inclusivity -different classes- or maybe even both?

As part of the class's preliminary research, me and my housing partner, Varun (it’s done in teams of two) were told to present on this very issue (before we found out it was to be our theme). I don't want to get into the inclusive debate, because I am frankly sick of talking about this, needless to say Varun and I spent many, many hours thrashing it out. Not surprisingly -especially considering the government policy of 'forcing' private developers to provide for a minimum amount of EWS (economically weaker sections) and LIG (low income groups) dwelling units in any housing project- we started talking economics and capitalism and socialism and the whole brouhaha. 

Varun is staunchly on the capitalist side. He sometimes wonders whether a completely liberal economy with little or no government regulation might not be the way forward. As for me, while I felt sorry when I saw the living conditions of the poor, a part of me also felt that they couldn't afford the things they needed because they didn't have money, and that was OK, because we live in a fair economic system where only the purchasing power maters. I did economics in school, and it seemed pretty basic to me- the market forces of demand and supply govern everything.

As secondary research for my dissertation, my guide asked me to watch Story of Stuff and The Economics of Happiness. She also asked me to read economist Amit Bhaduri's work: The Face You Were Afraid to See and Development with Dignity, and both make compelling (if slightly repetitive) reads. I also recently finished reading Introducing Capitalism: a graphic guide. This blog post is, in essence, my understanding of and thoughts on these books.

I just love the cover design of The Face You Were Afraid to See. 

How awesome are the photograph, the font, and

the yellow against the stark black and white, all put together?

Bhaduri in particular makes very convincing arguments against liberalization and globalization. In a globalized economy and in a free trade system, producers from a still developing country are required to compete in the world market. The only way they can succeed is if they reduce the price of the commodity they are trying to sell (less price as compared to alternatives, more demand and thus profit). This is generally done by reducing the costs incurred in producing that commodity: labour, raw material, land, etc.

To reduce labour costs, most industries opt for mechanization and try to increase the productivity of each individual worker, thus minimizing the total number of workers. This works perfectly well on a micro level, for one firm. The problem arises when all (or most) of the producers start doing the same, especially in a labour intensive country like India.

When so many employers reduce jobs, the demand becomes much greater than the supply, and workers are happy to work in worse conditions than prescribed by the law just to make a living. Also, every worker becomes immediately replaceable, promoting the hire-and-fire system and casualization of labour. This is a lot like the informal construction labourer market- there assembles a huge crowd of such labourers near Kotla Mubarakpur who are looking for work on a day-by-day basis. Because there are so many competing for so few jobs, they willingly work for less than the daily wage prescribed by the government. This whole time, neither the builder nor the industry owner is doing anything wrong because they are just accommodating the market forces- higher the supply, lower the price. They would have to be seemingly stupid to pay more for the labour.

Our traditional economy was based on labour-intensive agriculture and other allied fields. With industrialization came the shift to the secondary and tertiary sector. In recent years, in order to ‘stay on the good side’ of international financial organizations such as IMF and the World Bank (the same reason for the move to free trade, which most benefits the first world members) the government has decided to promote private-public partnerships, wherein the government acts as a facilitator for the corporations. In fact, the relationship between political powers and big corporations has a long mutually beneficial history. The government has often used the Land Acquisition Act, for example, to take land away from people who had been living on it for generations (with little to no compensation) for ‘public purpose’ and give it to industrial giants at rock bottom prices- subsidising for them the initial cost of land, and in the case of the mineral rich Chattisgarh and Jharkhand, the raw material. No doubt there is substantial exchange of money on the side. This, I think, is where the corporations are at fault: they are willing to pay bribes to facilitate this transaction, instead of relying on the basics of economics and capitalism- the logic that they could have bought out the original owners simply by appealing to their self-interest. The government should also stay out of it; there are other ways of encouraging industry.

This also means that these people have no options but to look for jobs in other sectors. In essence, this means that there are many -the majority, in fact- who are unemployed or marginally employed in the country and who thus have very low purchasing power. They are unable to contribute significantly as buyers. But, yet, our economy is experiencing very high growth, even though the majority is pitiably poor. This is because money is increasingly getting concentrated in the hands of a privileged few: the rich are getting richer, and the poor are getting poor, at least relatively if not absolutely. The rich demand more and more products, and the industry responds by producing for them. This is what is driving our economy. 

Thus, the major demand in the market is for products for the rich- products which by virtue of their character require specialized, often large scale, production techniques and technologies, not to mention marketing and management. Bhaduri's oft stated example is of bottled water- we have many expensive variants of in the market even while a significant portion of our population has no access to potable water. This is almost like the Great Famine (1845-50) when the Irish were too poor to buy food, and the population reduced by 20-25%. But, at the same time, Ireland was a net exporter of food- for example, corn was shipped to Britain where it could fetch a better price in the market. 

Small scale producers are unable to compete with the big businesses and corporations, not just in terms of technologies but also the economies of production and scale. This results in a sort-of poverty trap, with the added result that the rich are becomingly increasingly indifferent to the poor, who are unable to contribute either as buyers or sellers. The only way out of this cycle would be better education, health and other public service, but under the new economic policies the investment in these sectors has fallen considerably.

Going by how the markets operate, under no regulation, producers would logically only produce those commodities for which they could get the most demand and best price. In today’s inequitable conditions, this would mean that even while the poor can barely make a living and thus going without roti, kapda and makaan, the rich are driving our economy forward to never before seen heights.

Obviously, then, high economic growth does not necessarily mean economic development. The growth is powered by the increase in purchasing of the power, and, against conventional knowledge, this growth is not trickling down to the poor. All those clichéd sayings that ‘there are two Indias’ is actually true.

This inequity is only rising. Bhaduri thinks that it’s only a little while before the economy will crash and burn. Like what happened during the Great Depression (1930s). Right before, in 1929, 0.1% of America’s population controlled 34% of the wealth, owning as much money as the bottom 42%.

America was able stand on its feet again with the help of Keynes’ and Roosevelt’s ‘The New Deal,’ which focused on increasing public expenditure and greater regulation of financial institutions and trading. The policies focused on always ensuring that there was money flowing in the economic system. After the Second World War, America’s plans to help the impoverished European and East Asian countries –the Marshall Plan- also hinged on this. They provided a significant amount in aid, but with the proviso that 90% of it be matched by the receiving government (the rest 10% being a repayable loan with interest), and also that the recipients co-operated in an open market. Thus, most of this money was spent on American good and the policy meant that more money flowed back into the American economy.

Anyways, my point is that even America imposed stringent controls on its economy in the early stages, at least until the 80s when Milton Friedman started questioning the importance of government intervention -Monetarism. Of course, both Monetarism and Keynesianism hinge on ever-increasing consumption -disparaged quite famously in the Story of Stuff- with its associated negative cultural effects.

So, maybe, like Bhaduri advocates, the Indian government should also impose more regulations and dramatically increase public expenditure on basic rights like education and health, and also on shared infrastructure, thereby creating employment.

Take the example of South Korea -a rich and developed country- which got there by following a form of “State Capitalism” which included protectionist tariffs and government expenditure in infrastructure. On the other hand, many African countries who got aid from the World Bank and IMF -providing they opened their markets- are still struggling.

I’m not against free trade and liberalization and globalization, I just think that maybe the Indian economy is not yet ready for a completely open market. Maybe we should encourage free trade in some sectors while still protecting the others.

Argh, this is such a confusing issue where every turn means a new minefield. It seems that these days Varun and I are always arguing about this, and our opinions are never fixed, nor our ideas clear, because we are never able to completely defend our reasoning to each other. Bleh.

Freedom

can be dangerous and deadly and everything in between.

-Professor I.M. Chisti on 17th August, 2011. 

Science

Science is beyond awesome. It's the brilliantest, most awe-inspiring thing ever. I always knew this, of course, but lately I've been reading a lot of science-ish books, and watching a lot of Discovery Science, and I'm completely overwhelmed by all the amazing things that science enabled me to know. When I think of all the secrets that scientists have unravelled, and all those that they soon will, I, well, I can't even contemplate the scope, because I know so little of their discoveries. All I feel is this extreme sense of well being that I was born and live in this age, where people want to know how, and why- this age where we are encouraged to question everything. And, when someone finds one of the answers (which, in most cases, leads to even more questions), they are able to, and encouraged to, share them with the whole world. And then come all the discussions, and debates, and further experiments. Science never stops, and I love that. People never stop questioning.

And science is so frickin' vast. I read What on Earth Happened, and that was about everything. In Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!, Richard Feynman gets upto all sorts of antics, and in terms of science, he definitely doesn't limit himself to just theoretical physics. He's experimented with biology, and chemistry, and 'magic' tricks, and ant behaviour, and electronics, and so much more. Even Freakonomics and SuperFreakonomics cover such a large range of topics, and I know they're about economics, but economics is also a science. Right now I'm reading Genome, and I'm flabbergasted by what all comes just under genetics, and how interrelated all science is. Behaviour and psychology and physiology and genetics are all different facets of the same body, and they work together to make us who we are. Next on my list are The Code Book, George's Secret Key to the Universe and A Brief History of Time, and anything else I can get my hands on. Science is seriously fascinating and knowing is seriously addictive. I can't seem so stop.

Edit, 13.10.2010:

From Genome, pg. 271

The fuel on which science runs is ignorance. Science is like a hungry furnace that must be fed logs from the forests of ignorance that surround us. In the process, the clearing we call knowledge expands, but the more it expands, the longer its perimeter and the more ignorance comes into view.

So, so true.

What the hell is roflcopter?!

Ha.

Link via Ankur Banerjee, quote from Rachit Agarwal.

Read

Slightly abrupt ending, but it made me laugh.

Urban Planning - a short story

Again, by Amit Varma, published at India Uncut.

Awesome Awesomeness!

Neave.

That's the website of Paul Neace, a British interaction designer. It's oh-my-god brilliant. And the GAMES! Shit. Space Invaders and Frogger and Pac-man and Tetris and Snake and all-that-you-remember-as-holy-and-sacred.

Is it me or are they more addictive this time round?

P.S. Thanks to Rikki for telling me about this!

What's the big deal about blogging?

Amit Varma answers the question in his most recent post. He publishes India Uncut, one of the most popular Indian blogs, and is also the author of My Friend, Sancho, a humourous look at the reporter-solving-a-crime-and-falling-in-love-at-the-same-time genre. An easy-read which I would definitely recommend, but then I like most stuff. Ammani found it quite average.

Vagitus

The cry of a newborn. From Latin vagire, to wail.

Welcome!

Most of you reading this already know me. Those who don't, well, hopefully they will, soon.

The purpose of this blog, to cut a long story short, is to pass. I'm a third year student of architecture at the School of Planning and Architecture, New Delhi. Our Theory of Settlements teacher will only grade our assignments if they are up on our blogs. So there you go. The cyberspace now has about 70 odd more bloggers, including me, and most probably, you.

Third year is scary. Barely a week's gone by, and the work's piling up. But that's not really it, we're all used to work; it's the content. Third year really needs you to put yourself out there: share your thoughts and beliefs and reasons. And I don't just mean this blog, other subjects -Architectural Design and Theory of Design, for example- require the same.

Frankly, it's scary.

Sharing yourself with friends is easy. Sharing yourself with your faculty, with people you now "know" for two years but don't really know at all, with random people who will stumble upon this blog? Not so much.

When you're talking, you can use expressions, and gestures, and when you're talking to someone who knows you, sometimes you don't need words at all. This, it requires us to put our psyche into words and sentences and paragraphs. Like I said, scary. Intimidating as shit.

But, now that I've started, I hope to really get going. I'll try to be as regular as possible, and not be as boring as possible. However, those of you know me also know that I'm great at this thing called velleity (new word, came across it while trying to find a title for this blog).

Like I said, I hope to change.