Something new that I learnt

One of the things that I learnt recently from a particular article that I was supposed to read for the Cambridge interview, from an architectural magazine, was about university campuses architecturally and how their context in terms of their location and their objectives is essential. This article was purely based on American university campuses, and did not look at other campuses in the world, although these were claimed to be ‘global’ trends. I further had a discussion about this very topic with two Cambridge interviewers, hence broadening my vision even more. The context of a particular structure is very important to grasp, as this determines many other things – weather patterns of the area, patterns of living, cultures, traditions and so on. This in turn helps in attaining certain functions in the campus according to that. For example, Columbia University is located in New York city, and hence it has to comply with the surroundings. Because of the lack of space, it is not possible for the university to be spread out and have large sprawling parks and grounds. Every university should ideally fit into the city/town, and this is done by the architecture of the university.

One important term that I learnt pertaining to this was collegiate Gothic. The point of this article was to scrutinize the universities and examine whether campuses fit into the cities or not, and if they didn’t fit in, how they were altered and renovated. What campus architects do, is that they follow revivalist styles of architecture, especially Gothic architecture, which is what is collegiate Gothic. Also today, when there are several schools of thought in architecture that have progressed and developed with time, campus architects stick to the centuries old Gothic architecture. This is ironic, since universities stand for progress, education, change and so on. Yet, the architects play safe with revivalist styles. Instead of making the campuses more and more functional according to the technological changes taking place in the world, they are still ‘stuck in the past’. This is one of the knowledge issues. There is a perfectly reasonable argument in favour of the revivalist styles – the architects want to maintain their architectural roots, and hence satisfy their emotional side. However, this is also seen as a disregard to change. It is important for the world to accept changing perceptions.

Another knowledge issue that arose from discussion was whether the trends that are followed in America apply to the rest of the world. The omniscient view taken by the article was somewhat deceptive. It is not possible to make generalizations for the entire world as there will be differences. American university campuses are very different from campuses in other countries. I had particularly discussed about Indian universities and American universities. For instant, in America, great importance is given to ‘campus life’ and related social lives of the students. This does not necessarily exist in India. This is very clearly seen in the architecture of the campus. Indian colleges have rundown buildings (think HR College as in Mumbai to take an example amongst many others). However, alongside these rundown buildings, there also exist fabulous campuses such as Louis Kahn’s IIM Ahmedabad. There are different cultures that coexist in the world, hence owing to different architectural languages. Every region has a characteristic architectural style, and this cannot be undermined.

To conclude, I want to say that architecture is like a language. Every region has its own architecture, every person has his particular needs from architecture and so on. It is not right for anybody to generalize architectural styles and set rigid trends that everybody must follow. At the same time, however, it is important to evolve in architecture as it is important in other fields. This is a reflection of changes in the world, and they should be constructively be applied.

The IB as an eye-opener

The IB is a great course, which allows you to think rationally, keeping in mind most perspectives. It allows one to explore an idea beyond the limits of the textbook, hence forming his/her own view on the idea. Being part of the IB course was a big eye-opener of sorts for me. I learnt many things that I was earlier ignorant about. Moreover, it allowed me to look at these things in my own way, without any inhibitions.

The one thing I learnt in the IB that will stay with me forever is the way art is viewed, and the way art is studied. Learning about different movements that took place in the history of art is very important, but the IB allows one to interpret these movements, analyse the gradual course of these movements and then work with each movement in a unique manner. The one movement that I could relate to in the history of art is the Pop Art movement.

Pop Art was meant to break all traditional rules of art; it is that movement of art through which everyday objects that are not considered of any artistic value are brought into the art scene, and are glorified by making them into art works. Moreover, pop art was made to appeal to the masses, and the thing that one could identify with the masses was machines. Pop art was 'machine made' and in bulks. It was printed over and over again, like machine-made goods. As expected, pop art originated from advertising.

It was overwhelming for me to learn about pop art, as the concept of glorifying something as trivial as soup cans really struck me. It was hard for me to digest that paintings of recurring soup cans fetched big money. After being exposed to only the traditional art, like still-life, figure drawing and so on, pop art came as a fresh breath of air. One of my favourite artists is Andy Warhol, the father of pop art. A lot of my art works are based on the principles of pop art, as I can relate to it to a great extent. The IB did allow me to find out about this movement in art, which has played a big part in my artworks.

Another thing that I learnt in the IB that will stay with me for a long time to come, is TS Eliot's poetry. If there was one thing that I utterly disliked earlier, it was poetry. Learning Eliot's poetry in IB English provided with a whole new perception to me, as to how one can make poetry interesting. When I studied in the Indian system, we were forced to learn poetry strictly the way the teachers asked us to. There was only one right answer in poetry. English was converted into an objective paper with only right or wrong answers.

TS Eliot wrote about the degradation of the world, and predicted the future of the world, which would be a wasteland. There are layers to his poetry; layers which are open to interpretation. I had no idea that poetry could be so moving, so inspired. Eliot's poetry led me to do a lot of research, it inspired me to make sketches and so on. I was thoroughly moved by his poetry, and I am sure it will remain with me for a long time to come.

In the IB, we are encouraged to think outside the box. We are asked to do a lot of background reading. Moreover, we are expected to make interesting connections between poetry and other areas that seem irrelevant to literature like science, etc.

Talking in broad terms, the IB has helped me question everything I learn. All these questions help me discover the connections between the various areas of knowledge. There are amazing connections that I derived between subjects here at the IB. It feels like more complete education because whatever we learn is questioned and scrutinized endlessly.

Anybody can make history. Only a great man can write it.

One question that struck me the most in class was, how important is our past? It is important to know our past, mainly because it is the past that brings us to the present, and there are certain events that shape our lives. It is important to know these events, and our own place in these events. More importantly, each individual creates his or her unique spot in the world in the course of his life. This spot is defined more and more through his or her experiences and attitude. This is the spot that he remembers, and all his recollections are based on this. Having no memory of the past cannot lead us to the ultimate truth.

According to me, history is an account (although not complete) of the past. It is merely a story that is altered according to one's convenience. Each version of history is different from another, as experiences in one's life are different from another. This can be seen from diaries of different people. One records those events that make an impact on his/ her life. Those events that are worth remembering, whether bitter or sweet, are the ones that are made immortal in a diary. Everybody makes history through his or her diary. The whole of history is a collection of micro-histories written by individuals. There exists no real macro-history, which generalizes everything that happened in the past.

However, there are few accounts of history that overpower the others, and these are the ones that are written by people in power. There are history textbooks written by publishers who glorify the country, and conveniently leave out the 'villain-ish' tactics that the country has ever undertaken. CBSE history textbooks were completely changed when the ruling party changed from BJP to Congress. Gandhi and Nehru were glorified more in the Indian history. This was part of their propaganda. There will definitely be a great difference between Indian history textbooks and Pakistani history textbooks even if they talk about the same event. Their stance will be different, because of the bitter rivalry between the two countries. It is hence, true that history is written by people in power.

This is a farce, as people in power most generally misuse it. There are fatal conspiracies when it comes to history, and there are many questions left unanswered. The only people who know the truth are the ones in power. Neil Armstrong landing on the moon could be a huge conspiracy! There are theories that propose that he never stepped foot on the moon!

Crimes against criminals (?) : K@W Assignment

Terrorist suspects that are taken as prisoners are tortured physically and mentally in order for them to reveal crucial information about the attacks. This article explores into this matter and questions the authorities whether it is correct for them to persecute terrorist suspects (who might not even be true terrorists) even though they helped launch merciless attacks that destroy peace in the world. The article is clearly slanted in favour of the human rights of the prisoners, and asserts that the authorities misuse their indisputable power and wriggle out information out of prisoners using unethical means.

According to this article, CIA interrogators threatened an Al Qaeda prisoner with a gun and an electric drill. These unethical techniques to grill information out of a prisoner are illegal too. Apart from violating the law, these go against the basic human rights of an individual, whether he is a terrorist suspect or a CIA officer. There were many psychological tricks that the officers implemented to shake the prisoners mentally. They tried their best to squeeze out information without caring about the damage caused.

One disturbing piece of information that this article also gives is that there is no or hardly any action being taken against such brutal behaviour of the interrogators. Moreover, the news was hardly even known to the public. The information was revealed just about recently, after a concealing it long. Many cases of potential misconduct by interrogators were filed under the Justice Department. However, out of these, only one person was prosecuted, and two resigned before any action could be taken against them. This clearly shows the biased nature of the Justice Department. They wouldn’t take any concrete steps to combat the misbehavior of the interrogators, and would always put the matter off. There was never a clear answer given in the eve of this matter whenever involved officials were asked about it. There were vague ‘reaffirmations’, without substantial reliable information.

Of these prisoners, there might be only mere suspects who might not have anything to do with the terrorist activities. Despite this, they were captured in these hell-like prisons and tortured till they reveal information that the authorities are so keen to hear. These people might have been simply captured because they are suspects, but have no concrete proof against them saying that they are terrorists.

The terrorist suspects have allegedly committed major crimes by destroying peace among people. They could have been behind a major attack in which many innocent people lost their lives. For example, Al Nashiri could have been a terrorist, as he was accused of plotting the 2000 attack on the US Cole, where 17 sailors died. However, this is not confirmed news. The interrogators torture the men in order to make them reveal their true selves. They gamble with the lives of the innocent, ruin them psychologically, and in many cases even physically, and then send them out back in the world. They cause irreversible impacts on the lives of these people.

This article reveals a cruel side of power. The authorities in power can irrefutably use it according to their will. They can use it, abuse it, and over-abuse it. Their only excuse for using it, however ironic that may sound is to propagate ‘peace’. These are direct crimes against humanity, and they all go unnoticed just because they are committed by people whose actions cannot be questioned. The higher officials were ‘angry as hell’ about this, but that is about it.

Campbell's Condensed Soup: K@W

"I love Los Angeles. I love Hollywood. They're so beautiful.

Everything's plastic, but I love plastic. I want to be plastic."

- Andy Warhol

This is a painting, worth around $10,000. One might not see this artwork worth the money it bagged. It only consists of prints of ordinary soup cans, which incidentally contained the artist's favourite soup. There is seemingly no aesthetic way in which these cans are arranged; they are just placed in a line, with no real focal point.

For years and centuries, art has been pursued so as to beautify. Paintings were made so as to hang them on the walls, and in turn make them look aesthetically appealing. Music was also composed for the same reasons – to beautify sound! Dancing is also a way to beautify one’s movements. Along with the function to beautify, art has one more function – to express.

Breaking barriers is important in art; Andy Warhol broke major barriers in art, glorified everyday objects by painting them and hence enhanced their importance. Before creating this artwork, it is said that his friends had told him to create paintings of things he loved. Going literally by the words, Andy Warhol painted the Campbell’s Soup cans – these made up his lunch for a really long time in his life. This is one example how the artist’s psyche and emotions determine the type of art he creates. Each artist would deal with an issue with a different approach, and a totally different outlook.

For a long time, art was bound by the traditional rules, which everybody had to abide by. There were restrictions and taboo subjects. Nobody earlier even considered used soup cans as worthy to be painted. Andy Warhol created this new perspective in art, and it was a powerful message. Symbolically, it represented the rise of the civilian. These objects were used by one and all, and everybody using them was united through this artwork. Warhol’s paintings urged people to look for all those little important things that go by unnoticed in their lives, and acknowledge their presence in some way or the other. One can see through this, that art teaches many worthy lessons, and addresses to many social issues, hence gaining public attention and creating awareness.

Perspective building is made easier through art. One may just reject Warhol’s painting and theme by saying that there lies no meaning in empty, used soup cans, and they are of no artistic value. Another might say that this is the message that needs to be spread far and wide, that everybody needs to retain their worth for the greater good. A third person might say that soup cans of different flavours arranged together in a painting may just look more like an advertisement, and less like an artwork. That is the greatest thing with art – it is open to interpretation. There are a number of perspectives built by different people about a single work of art. In this lies the true essence of art – expression. The viewer sees himself in the painting, for instance, and hence construes it in that way. This might be very different from the idea that the artist had in his mind while creating the painting. There does not exist a single truth, but many relative truths, which differ from person to person.

Campbell’s soup cans can in fact, affect people stronger than a painting of a beautiful maiden from the Victorian Age and her perfect features because of the lasting impression it creates. Simple and fuss-free, these cans stand for the world of today.