[Reader-list] People Play Games

[kaiwan mehta]

Hi,

I recently conducted a Summer Workshop with students for my sarai
fellowship project. The aim was to understand how research and
teaching can be connected and how one should feed into the other. It
was an important pedagogic exercise to realize how experiences of
excavation or research are important learning tools and how it can be
used positively as against a classroom method. At the same time
students as subjects would add important insight into how people
understand certain concepts, essentially as budding professionals.

This 6th posting details out the proceedings of this workshop.

Documenting a Workshop...

The summer workshop set out to experiment further with students',
aspects of community and/or migration. The plan was to address this
issue by discussing documentation and representation of a place – its
history, memory, nuances, etc.

The first day of the workshop was about visiting the site I am
researching. We walked a central part of the area, giving them stories
and histories on the way. Negotiating crowds and shops, dirt and
traffic we walked and walked till we reached C P Tank where the walk
ended. Giving them a few hints on reading architecture to its
connection to politics and culture, the day ended expecting students
to walk on their own and excavate the area further on.

The second day we began with a conversation on how we visit places as
students or tourists. The questions were leading to a discussion on
how we document places – academic and casual documentation, if there
is any possibility of such a distinction! Also how we orient ourselves
to places with a consciousness to study or move or 'see' and area or
place. Some students had visited the area before, as shoppers or
visits to relatives, whereas for others it was a first time. We
discussed how we record or display our memories when we visit other
cities, e.g. as tourists. As students, architects are used to
documenting places they visit as measured drawings or sketches,
whereas as tourists it was photographs. There was also mention of
other formats like video recording and interviews. The immediate
question was why does not one replace the other? Why not measured
drawings to your neighbour while discussing your trip or why not
photographs as academic documentation. The immediate reaction was that
measured drawings are more trusted for a purpose whereas a photograph
depends on the author's point of view and may not be 'sound' in the
angle it shows a site or building from. Whereas photographs they
agreed was more expressive of site or location or ambience,
environment, etc. as against a measured drawing. The discussion then
raised the questions of 'trust' attached to one format as against
another while subconsciously depending on other formats like sketches
or photographs to have a 'holistic' picture of the location. They also
discussed how living or interacting with people on a site was
important to realize issues of a context rather than go by popular
notions of what a city or an area is. There were discussions like –
photographs are all about individual perspectives whereas measured
drawings are universal in what information they convey. The doubt
raised was – what information is required to understand architecture –
how much of it can be conveyed in measured drawings? Is measured
drawing also a point of view – a perspective of a kind? Could maps or
drawings be as fabricated as a photographic image?

Based on their experiences of the previous day's walk we also
discussed the need that we often feel while navigating an area or
locality – maps, landmarks and perception. The most interesting was
the use of perception developed through site physical geography – like
the turns of corners, facades of buildings and movement of crowds.

Interesting issues we discussed ….
Perception of space, place is a matter of many human faculties
Are representation formats – comfort with it and trust for it –
dependent on your discipline?
How does a map on paper engage with perceptive notions while navigating a space?

These were interesting questions since documentation and understanding
are inter-related, and historically, a mode of documentation will
represent a place in context of time, later. Hence documentation or
mapping is then crucial and since architects are continuously engaging
with this activity for all their work, it is nessacary that they are
sensitive to it.

This discussion was followed by a talk by Zainab Bawa and then one by
Madhavi Tangella.

Zainab introduced her work with train compartments, railway stations
and a public promenade like Marine Drive. Her ethnographic methods
were important for the students to know about. An interesting aspect
was how she documented her daily observations and interviews on blogs
or mails and then these became maps for others to imagine the city of
Bombay or its public spaces. It was an interesting example of a
textual and virtual map that was creating imaginations of space and
place. It was also important that rather than abstractions like a
tourist or DP maps, this map had particular characters – people who
interacted with Zainab – they may not be abstractions or holistic
representations obviously but they help construct the imaginations of
constructs of some members of 'a public'. Zainab pointed out well the
relationship that exists between ones personal space like the home to
the 'public space' outside. An important conversation that got
generated was how does research of this kind get applied or used. This
question can be understood – from the point that most students being
architecture students – wish to a see a tangible result of research.
However it was interesting for them to know how such research besides
pedagogic or personal values also had use in planning and designing
today. How such research exposed the difference of perception that
exists between planners and designers against those of the users. The
existence of heterogeneous perceptions at the level of people and
aspirations towards homogenizing spaces by particular classes, state
or designers was an interesting conclusion to this discussion.

Madhavi began with a detailed discussion on her research of Telegu
migrants and Video Theatres. She discussed a politics of a state and
language that created a migrant community in the city but also how
they were tied by language – to memory and the self. She then gave a
wonderful description of how a video theatre like Sagar Cinema works –
spatially and in its mechanism of ticket pricing, posters, etc. she
could interestingly get students reactions on how they often find such
theatres 'shady' and also how most of them knew of these spaces
because of their servants using them. The work patterns of the
migrants, their economic links to the city, their bonds to home –
language and living in a fractured and contested city were explained
with great textual images. It was interesting that we could draw links
in many ways to the historical migrants in Bhuleshwar we discussed the
previous day – their living patters, cultural and language memories as
ties to home, etc. the issue of migration – as not a historical one
but a continuous process, all of us having an ancestry of migrant
great grand fathers or so, migrating within the city itself; city to
suburbs and so on were all very interesting. It was important to
realize that migration was not an – 'us versus them' issue but all of
us have a history of it or maybe even today we are migrating. Secondly
our notions of looking at migrants or migrant 'public' space as
'shady' – not very trust worthy – brings to fore a politics of space
and imagination in the city. Thirdly the important issue was how
migrants have aspirations and memories that they wish to connect with
– a question of identity – which results in creating culture within
the city. One of the points in the discussion was how the city was
divided within these various areas and localities – the area described
by Madhavi had no apparent similiarities to the area they walked in
the previous day – then on what basis do we assume 'a city' (a
homogenous entity?).

Finally we raised points on whether abstract terms like 'public' and
'city' really existed and further more how do we assume their
representations in formats of documentation or maps – especially since
they affect policy, planning and hence, life and culture.

Before the exercise of the workshop was set out, Ruchika (a young
architect, who helped me conduct some interviews for my project)
talked to the students about her experiences of navigating the area as
a researcher. She explained how the experiences of searching for a
person to interview itself made her realize some issues of caste,
locality, fear, etc within the site and how it was important to record
these.

Then the students were asked to spend the next two days working on one
particular road, street or area within the site and try to make a
'holistic' map of it. The discussions till now had opened up many
issues of documentation and panoptic maps or drawings and the problems
of collecting and representing 'knowledge' of/regarding a particular
object or subject.

The third day, we began with discussing what the students, divided in
two groups, had decided to work with on site. One of the groups found
interesting how spaces between buildings alternated between being
spaces of garbage, narrow and neglected and spaces of community. Where
as the second group was interested in how temples formed a relation
with the streets and what was the importance of temples to this area.
While discussing again the possibilities of map making and types of
maps, two terms came up for discussion – 'abstract' (with reference to
'public' and 'city') and 'trust' (with reference to maps popularly
used today –from planning to tourism).

After a days work on site – thinking, negotiating – the students
returned with some keen observations and ideas. The group studying
streets and temples discussed using knots/strings and Braille as
apparatus to understand a map for their study. Another interesting
idea they discussed was how navigating the area was like a game –
where they also realized through interviews how all in the area were
constantly related to one another either as neighbours or economic
transaction. Both kind of relations were endorsed by a hierarchy of
temples – temples that received patronage from a particular street or
those that were important for a group in the city at large. Their
introduction to a series of interactions on site – tenancy, temple
donations, trading, living north working south, etc. were like
negotiations in a game. It was interesting to see how the community is
getting defined in term of 'negotiations'.

The other group discussing spaces between buildings still relied on a
figure ground map – a two dimensional drawing that clarifies on built
versus un-built spaces. It took some discussion for them to completely
move away from existing systems to be able to explore. There was not
only a certain resistance to move away from existing systems but also
a demand for a straight forward and comparable alternative – rather
than a system that could be worked with. However the concluding
discussion decided upon recording audio and visual descriptions and
putting it together in some kind of a textual graphic format.

After another days work, the last day to finally work on a
representation idea, the students not only came back with much more
information, many experiences and various questions. Through one and a
half day of interacting with people in the locality and observing the
locality itself they had various ideas and notions about the site and
'people patterns' there. The group that wished to work on the 'game'
idea – discarded it to develop some kind of representative apparatus.
It was a good chance to discuss with them how an apparatus or
installation was only a physical representation (of pipes and pumps)
of the site, similar to a colour coded map. They had an interesting
question – can the map be interactive, where the user is designing it
himself continuously? They discarded the 'game map' since they thought
they were getting bogged down in designing many rules for the game –
only to realize again that after all there are many rules – said and
unsaid that we all operate within, living in this city. The point on
an interactive map was important since it brought forth the point that
when we study any subject we are as much a part of it and not removed
from it. They then embarked upon designing the 'game' – with its rules
and graphics.

The other group still found it difficult to move away from
conventional map formats. It appeared as if perception and logic were
two reasons for this. There had to be a visible logic – e.g. a text
had to be read left to right / how can one read two texts
simultaneously? Perception was not trusted much – observation was
taken to be obvious physical recording. Through much persuasion,
rather discussion, they started working with a writing of a text –
probably a graphic text.

Both groups finally recorded their complete observations and
experiences of working with the site. The former group developed an
interesting set of rules (which I can provide if someone is
interested) to play the game – to represent and understand the area
and the people operating within it, however they did not have the time
to completely develop the graphics for it. However it was
congratulatory to hear from them that the five day exercise had helped
them in developing an eye and a method to view localities, sites and
some concepts.

Fact File:

The workshop was attended by 14 students of which 9 worked on the
exercise, the others attended only the orientation.

The students were from;
Pillai's College of Architecture,
Kamla Raheja Vidyanidhi Institute for Architecture and
L S Raheja College of Arts and Commerce

The workshop was conducted at Sir J J College of Architecture, Mumbai
as they very kindly granted space for us to have our discussion and
working sessions.

Thanks and Regards,
Kaiwan


-- 
Kaiwan Mehta
Architect and Urban Reseracher

11/4, Kassinath Bldg. No. 2, Kassinath St., Tardeo, Mumbai 400034
022-2-494 3259 / 91-98205 56436