the zoo at the academy

at the academy of architecture yesterday for a first year jury, where namrata, neha, makrand, benita and shaheen (three kriva, one rizvi, one academy) had put together quite an interesting project in the zoo. the jury was held in the meagerly air conditioned exhibition space on the first floor. the thing about academy is that it has a bunch of kids from a variety of backgrounds, unlike krvia, which largely is a juhu bandra rich kid school- barring a few exceptions. because of that, at academy, the range of approaches and work is substantial- and the kids are not half as smug.

the project allowed the kids to develop program and site within the zoo based on any experience that they would like to highlight or a character that they would like to address.

it seemed as if all the projects fell under one of four categories. the first being the ‘experiential’ space category, where a path was created with events attempting the sublime existing one after the other. the narrative and its spatial equivalent were tenuously connected; as if spatial experience can have a direct relationship with a single notion. when the inhabitant was a blind child, the project got cleaner because it became more directly sensual- sound and texture.

the second category, mostly catering to ‘kids’ were the image/icon projects. metaphor became ‘ducks’ in the venturi sense- buildings became boats, icebergs, trees, to give the kids pleasure. i got into an interesting little debate about the nature of metaphor and poetry, and the benefits of transliterations or abstraction with some of the kids. maybe i do approach architecture from a series of preconceived notions of what is ‘architectural’ and what is not. the direct iconographic approach made me uncomfortable- they seemed to not penetrate deep enough to a more substantial understanding of the architectural experience. against my inarticulate search for the poetic, the kids placed well worn slick arguments regarding the easy consumption of images and enjoyment of spectacle. and they were right- unfortunately.

the third category was the landform. the classic project in a place where we are too afraid to make an architecture. i know the project well, as that has been my concern for a while in so many projects that i have guided- including nehas thesis. it does seem like a cop-out of sorts sometimes.

the final category was the ‘building’ building. the institutional. these were few and far between and were largely too bulky. the best among them, straddling the line between poetic and ridiculous was the washing machine for animals. three stories of clamped down animals being given a scrub and then blow dried.

overall, i think that rupali, aditya and me had a great time. we spoke a lot. the zoo is quite a space for asking the archiecural question. what do we make of spaces for people in a place where nature is trapped for scientific study and entertainment? so many of the projects asked that question- the very nature of shelter and of ‘play’. it was fun to talk about, and i think we talked a lot- too much perhaps.