“If the intent of architecture education is to create office ready students, then that is the biggest failure.”—Pramod Balakrishnan

THE PROFESSION

Well, in the history of civilisation, the architect is a very young entrant. All that was done before was carried out by others who were not called architects. So, that is the first issue. It’s the same all over the world. And that has caused us some hardships.

We, architects, cry. We are upset about our position in society. We feel that we have not been given the recognition we deserve. And it goes on and on. For decades. It gets louder with time. But nothing changes.

The reasons are a few. But first and foremost, we are not a fraternity that comes together ever—there is no collective strength. We are all individuals some with big egos. Everyone is concerned about themselves.

When we cry, we talk to only architects/designers. Of what value is that conversation?

In this scenario, each of us must make the effort, apart from our work, to inform society, the government (if we can work with them, which in itself is an art) and foremost the clients we have—what is architecture and what we bring to the built environment? It must, of course, be finally shown in what is built to be occupied.

It will be a slow process but needs to be sustained through each one’s career. The situation we are in is because of our seniors post 1975 and rapidly after 1996.

As mentioned, we as architects cater to the rich and not to the rest 95% of society. Who is to blame? We are.

I know as professionals we need to be paid for any work we do. From concept drawings to limited competitions and whatever our contracts are—collecting these payments is also an issue. It is based on how one delivers, and the relationship you establish with the client that can make the task easier.

But because the profession is not united we undercut the other to get a contract.

Ethics and morals are a concern. But that has become a way of the world in all areas, so that’s left to each one’s position on it. The reduction in fees is enhanced by other means. There, therefore, is an inequity that cannot be bridged. The game cannot be changed and the rules are ambiguous. But you need to play it, and from experience, everyone has opportunities to work. It’s how you use them and not what you expect the rewards to be.

Finally, as long as we call architecture, buildings, we get clubbed with anything built. Words like “intangible” are the parts of the language that clients don’t understand. Nowadays, maybe many architects are also unaware because they only heard these words as students. We must begin to call them environments and not buildings. The change in that one word can help our clients and others to think.

Another battle is bigger clients going for international architects for their projects. They pay them far more than they pay some of the Indian architects. The white man, yellow man syndrome still exists. Not been able to eradicate that. Are we not to blame for this? Many of us become local architects to these architects. It’s the story for sure in Chennai. What happens if we refuse to be local architects? That would be a beginning. I don’t; even though I have been requested many a time.

Finally, the crazy desire to get an X amount of architects for a billion population and more has mushroomed the schools rapidly.

One must question the X amount first. It makes no sense as we cater largely to the rich and maybe the higher middle class. I wonder what that last group is. 543 or more schools bring out over 21,000 architects every year at a conservative estimate of 40 students per year. That adds to the problem.

EDUCATION

Most schools of architecture are business. They need students to fill up their seats. They need a modicum of teachers to teach. I wonder what that word means. Then from the first semester to the final year, everything is so structured and boring that the student at the end of the day does not know much. But they think now that they have graduated, they must get their dues.

What then is the problem here? It begins with what is it that the school attempts to give the students as they leave their portal. Not one of the colleges I asked even attempted to reply.

It must begin with education. Maybe even in schools too. We need to create minds that question. Minds that are constantly observing analysing and even expressing themselves in the written word too. It should not be rote learning, for sure.

Our design briefs in studios must not be a problem to be solved, but how the students can interpret the fluid brief. The process should not be linear. It cannot be only one way, all through five years. And every studio is a larger typology in terms of size and complexity. How much the student understands these complexities is another issue. But then the school has worked to the syllabus and boxes are ticked.

We are creating “instructed doers”—judged by the teachers, with marks deciding who is good, better, and who fails. Teachers rarely want anyone to fail, because then they fail. All mess.

Teachers are learners and mentors and are not judges or providing solutions. The student must do that—be critical of themselves and their work, and judge themselves.

They must be given the skills to communicate through words and drawings; not overly done but to explain the intent, not the concept, which in itself to me has no meaning.

Selected professional practices must be involved in education, including a few from creative fields. Working with hands is important. The students shouldn’t be overloaded with so many credits. Rather, they should be given time. As someone said, one cannot teach architecture.

We need creative thinkers and doers of many kinds. It’s a lovely field. We are, by our strangulating education, destroying young minds and therefore the future of our profession.

It’s a collective, even though we are individuals.