ACADEMICS OF
TECHNOLOGY:
The word “academics”
and “technology”, if independently dissected through epistemological perspective,
perhaps the manifestation that emerges out could be compartmentalized and self-contained,
however the academics of technology together as a singular entity allows to
resonates paradigmatic shift from the technology as means to technology as a
way, it allows to bring about the scholastic attitude towards shaping the
academics based on technology. If the academics is the representative of didactic
end in terms of the technological, sociological and ideological manifestation
than academics of technology is an attitude towards technology, from belief and
ideological point of view.
The technology based
pedagogy is spoken recursively in heavy accent, historically as well as
contemporary times, within the academics. It is perhaps often represented the
view of advanced technocrats, who are trained internationally or those who
views technology as primarily a discursive and prescriptive imagination of
architecture or those who believes that technology as an unnoticed subject to
the cult of protagonist of design or those who are trained as an architect but
incompetent into internalization of the modalities of architectural thinking.
In all the cases there is an impatient emergence of unnoticed ideological cult
that is imagined to be as triumphant in architectural academics. The appeal
towards technology within such circumstances is not necessarily an academics
one, but rather entitlement one, which is tending towards an endorsement of subject,
without search for pedagogic mean. The truth in the description above is
perhaps not fully sharp enough and it can’t still be isolated within the wings
of criticism. The truth lies in the divide that has been created within the
architectural education by virtue of technology as a subject that trails the
design and design domain is outside the scope of technology or technology
domain is design resolution. This divide has not only build the discipline
barrier but also build the cult of technologists that are comfortable enough in
the production of similar language so that such academics have produced
historically are so monolithic, unimaginative & repetitive and continue to
do so in contemporary times.
IN BETWEEN ACADEMICS
The operative fault
line here is between those described as mainstreamed of multi-disciplinarian design
thinkers with world view and those who see themselves towards the cultural of
technocrats as mainstream of solution providers. The academics that happen
between such conditions largely determine the limited discourse on technology
and shape the future professionals. The multi-disciplinarian world-view
thinkers & cultural of technocrats mainstream as solution providers stand
for self-loathing that challenges and dismantle the relationship that are imperative
to be central to architectural discussion i:e design and technology. Such
situation of pedagogic imagination produces the strange Cartesian coordinates,
where multi-disciplinarian world-view thinkers moves from margin (global
architecture) to central (technology), where adaptation and contextualize
process is replaced by solution driven ideas (example Parametric or sustainability
or green building technology). If one takes liberty to use the same framework,
it is not exaggeration to state that the any discussion on academics based on
technology in Indian context, not only imagined to brings sense of dis-comfort
but also, often, illegitimatize the process as design pedagogy. The divide is
deeper and cultural one, which is propelling and informing many academic
debates of our times, which in turns produces the chauvinistic culture of academic,
and accolades self to be an intellectual with moral superiority which empowers
to pass judgment on the architectural pedagogy.
If the argument could
be taken forward for better understanding of the width of disparity, the
designer world view employs the standards that are often out of context and
discriminating in nature (user, gender, religious practices, culture and social
practices), while technology point of view this aspects are marginal and not
culturally aligned with the standards of technology that are being professed
since the emergence of an architectural education in India. The progressive
thoughts and regressive prescriptions are never meant to align to the
contemporary needs and envisioning future, in turn it never serves towards
collective didactic end. The entire architectural education thrives on pockets
of ideological patronage that has been historically created and professed, in
turn the architectural education with respect to design & technology is now
loaded with cynicism and platitudes towards each other.
BEYOND IN BETWEEN
Having argued the
disparity within the disciplines and issues in reconciliation of various
domains, it is perhaps time to discuss the position that institute needs to
align itself so as to allow resolution of all the forces of technology and its
responsibility towards architectural education and society at large. There are
few fundamental questions that needs to address first prior to any attempt in
reconciliation process. This is absolutely becoming imperative to address as
architecture profession has never been challenged than in contemporary times to
attempt to re-orient the historically evolved insight into technology and
nature of praxis.
To substantiate the
argument of re-orientation, it is necessary to state forth the example from
history where such relationships are understood and allowed it to develop as
large part of architectural pedagogy. The trained architect Jean - Nicholas –
Louis Durand (1760 – 1834) attempted to evolve within the standard curriculum.
He argued that the architectural education is not enough to evolve with
complete architect but it has capabilities to develop an attitude towards
architecture and nature. He developed didactic material based on the principles
that are originated form the post-revolutionary, proto-industrial approach.
These ideas were combined with the systematization of the process of
architectonic composition through methodical approach. The whole
experimentation is not to standardize but to develop the typological innovation
which has capabilities to demonstrate the alternate combination possibilities.
Such pedagogy allowed demonstrating the production of walls into skeletons,
monolithic structure into ribbed structure and support versus infill types of
construction which dictated the technology for many decades. His contribution
had been decisive, theoretically and most importantly methodological shift in
paradigm towards the “immaterialization” of the structural systems and tending
towards conceptual one. The Durand case is not for demonstration of new
technology but to articulate the argument that any sustained models embedded
within history need viewing from the condition of time with different
perspective, in order to determine the diverse possibilities with continuous
reflection for the development of new didactic models or school of thought.
Beyond between means
unraveling the time frozen paradigm, re-looking at history as history of ideas,
it is necessary to build discourse, role of history and its imperatives, so
that the pedagogy within the architectural education is dynamic and well within
the reach of its didactic end.
KRVIA AND TECHNOLOGY
In order to expand
the conversation on discourse on technology, it is imperative to understand the
divide of realm of world view and culture of technology within the existing
system in defining role of architecture as profession. Over and above the
endless divide of two domains, there seem several parallel realms within each
domain due to several factors. The most debated one which in particular pushes
the technology based conversation to margin is the school of thought or
ideological condition which determines the nature of architecture pedagogy and
its embedded conditions with respect to technology. The characteristics of an architectural
inquiry and research paradigm has shifted considerably from design discourse to
urban discourse, while technology is dragging the baggage of redundant and
outdated forms of content and method. The neither realms is able to be
consistent and synchronized with the nature of inquiry system and modes of
production of architectural manifestation. To strengthen the argument, the
technology is divided based on the material conditions which are engineering
domain while the architectural inquiry is always within the realm of
sociological and cultural dimension of urbanism.
In order to pull the
sociological and cultural perspective, where any conceptual development of
tools that are necessitated for architectural end is rather superseded by
inquiry that are remotely connected to architecture, while any attempt to have
manifestation such ideas in technological perspective is far from reality, on
other side technology continues to work around the colonial method of “trace the
template”. In other words the role of technology is reduced to a subject and
not the overall part of architectural discourse.
ANATOMY OF TECHNOLGY
Technology has
capacity to produces a well-defined world view thinking and cultured attitudes towards
the manifestation. The technology needs further articulation and embedded
conditions in plural sense. Such conditions are possible only when it blurs its
regimented boundary of solution provider to disciplinarian entrepreneur. One of
the possible ways to pave the path for embedded condition of technology within
architectural pedagogy is about creating interdependencies. The
interdependencies model enables the theory, practice and research outside the
core domain with multiple variables to determine the interpersonal
understanding of core. The relationships between design and technology are not
mutually exhaustive rather it’s a symbiotic one where enables in creating new
systems and values which is whole lot of social and cultural enterprise that
determine the evolutionary and sustenance conditions.
The idea and
responsibilities of technology is not just limited to the acquisition of
methods or the technology means not just limited to techniques and tools, it is
about cutting across the disciplines. To elaborate the idea of technology as
key concept in abstract sense or in conceptual terms, it is about cultural,
sociological as much as technological. The compartmental description of
technology weakens the integration and interdependencies process and turn
technology into a subject of consumption rather than discipline of praxis. The
recent research in technology has argued out the term “appropriate” instead of
“absolute/ standard”, it means the generic concept of technology is
systematically replaced by context based appropriate technology. The
appropriate technology is focusing on idea of various forms of technology,
ranging from low tech, high tech, frugal to domesticated technology. The larger
idea behind such dissemination of scale is meant to understand technology from
its traditional terms, intermediate technology to advanced technologies. The
scaling of technological ideas allow the research ranging from localized frugal
technology embedded into the realm socio cultural dimension of innovation to intermediate technology being to negotiate
the socio/cultural dimension and engineering domain while the high key
technology begins to implement the third tier of tools and conceptualization.
Hence the conceptual framework shall enable the value of a technology be continuously
evolved and consolidated by the social, cultural, economic and political milieu.
Technology is a body
of knowledge that integrates and enables the process of making at various
scales. The ideas of material based technology and framework based are tools
that allow the model to expand into the newer territories for collaboration.
Within this definition of technology has possibilities to contextualize and
appropriated within certain geography and time frame.
(As published in KRVIA Reflection 2018)
