Cover Story in 10th Anniversary issue. Interview and discussion of works by Yashwant Mistry, Architect, Baroda Published in Sept 1996 in the Indian Architect and Builder
The Architect is a Trustee....
Introduction
In the Indian context, the pressures to modernize were acutely realised after the British left. The issue of Formal Roots in the context of Contemporary Indian Architecture were largely unanswered. Few architects recognized the need for such a quest and fewer made a deliberate attempt to explore the possibility in their work. Architecture as an active agent of change in society was barely perceived. The complex task involved a strategic approach where specific issues needed attention. Much influenced by the theories and works of architects like Corbusier and Kahn, was a new generation of young architects who willingly took up the challenge of assimilating and synthesizing a Modern Architecture for India. A few among them could comprehend and decode the traditional systems and values of a culture as diverse as India. Three major Schools of Architecture contributed to this modern crop of young architects in the early years of Independent India - Bombay, Delhi and a small but effective college in Baroda. Trained and educated rigorously by architects of the Colonial "Raj", these young architects absorbed the rigorous working methods which would prove to be an asset in the scenario which Modern India held in store for them. Some of these instructors were State Architects practicing in many states of British India, thus imbuing a sense of In the process of this quest, many works of these architects have become landmarks in the Architecture of Contemporary India. With studied zeal of purpose they have created a niche for themselves in the pantheon of India's Modern architects. Recognition of their work by academicians and architectural historians has been forthcoming only in the recent years. While many of these architects are absorbed in their own pursuit of excellence, they have either not been acknowledged or have deliberately shunned efforts to publicize their work. In the scenario that exists at present the reasons for avoiding publicity could be a gross misrepresentation and misunderstanding of the ideas of the architect. For a Modern architectural idiom to emerge, a meaningful exchange of ideas should take place. The need of the day is to initiate a process by which a genuine dialogue occurs between architects and the so called critics. What we are dished out today is little more than a dressed up documentation of an architect with scanty references of his ideas and notions with which his works are conceived and built. Yashwant Mistry, in his late fifties, is a contemporary to that generation of architects who have sought to give modern architecture in India a footing at the international level. Lesser known than his contemporaries Raje, Doshi, Correa or Rewal, Mistry hails from a family of architects. Trained under the watchful eye of his father, Mistry acquired his education like a classical architect would have during Renaissance. A qualified painter from the JJ school of arts, he graduated in architecture from the MSU, Baroda. Unconventionality and Perfection do not go hand in hand but Mistry accomplishes both in almost all his works. Unfazed by the doubts expressed by others Mistry relentlessly executes his projects with remarkable alacrity. His dedication and zeal to architecture comes from his strong belief in a timelessness of an architectural work. His unorthodox concepts not only express themselves at the level of the basic idea but also to the level of detailing. For this he spares no efforts in working out the details of the project. Armed with the knowledge of all associated crafts Mistry is able to get the best out the people who implement his works. An avid designer, he believes and dreams of a world where all objects of daily use would be designed vigorously. His utopian and idealist notions are often expressed in his designs. One gets an idea of his tremendous capacity to design not only from a plethora of architectural projects but also from the objects he designs. Roofing tiles, details for sliding doors, shoes, furniture etc.. As a teacher he always encourages students to think unconventionally and advocates a freshness of approach. A strong believer in the classical notion of an architect, he believes and expects that architects should be masters of all associated crafts and sciences. A stiff critic of the present educational system being practiced in the country, Mistry strongly promotes the approach of a practical education to the students by practicing architects. Practicing for over 25 years, Mistry has always believed in the concept of trusteeship in his practice. He is of the belief that an architect is the trustee of the client's ideals and his money and is morally bound to deliver the desired product to the client. He attributes a great degree of responsibility to the profession for the state of our cities and architecture. In a series of interviews spanning over a month, Yashwant Mistry has stated his beliefs and ideals concerning his working style, concepts and ideas on broad range of subjects. Presented in a hitherto unexplored format are a plethora of his works in the form of visuals. His works speak for themselves and require no unnecessary descriptions in words. His convictions on architecture are mirrored in the interview that follows.
Interview with Yashwant Mistry
1. Could you tell us something about your childhood and teenage years and their lasting impressions on your life? When I was four my father presented me his set of finest brushes and colours available those days. I was fairly good at it and innately meticulous in my paintings. When I was in college I did a mural of Ajanta for my college. During my college days I also did a lot of book jackets for prominent Gujarati writers of the late fifties to basically satisfy my creative instincts. I also did two years of painting. But painting was a flat medium and I was longing for some thing more challenging. At the same time I saw Frank Lloyd Wright's photographs and my decision was made. I decided for to become an Architect. 2. Your father was a very well known Interior Designer in his times. Did his working style / methodology affect you in anyway ? I come from a family of architects. My ancestors were extraordinary craftsmen and I belong to the caste of carpenters. The meticulousness and aesthetic was basically inborn in me. My father was the pioneer of Interior Design in India. He was accepted as the Master Interior Designer in the thirties and he has designed the interiors of palaces of Gwalior. He was also invited to design the Interiors of the Laxmi Vilas Palace in Baroda when His Excellency Pratapsinh Gaekwad's was getting married. My father and his colleagues worked in the very precisely styled tradition of Interiors in those days. They would design the brackets, lighting fixtures, tapestries, carpets, door knobs, ceiling etc. to the minutest detail. The way they would treat each and every artifact emotionally was a thing to be seen to be believed. He was my first teacher. His style of working, discipline and the decorum that he and his colleagues would maintain while working has made a lasting influence on me and my working style. I am trying to practice those things in my architecture and I have yet to see whether I am successful or not. These days the interpretation of Interiors is very different. Today it is little more than furnishing. Very few people know about the bygone styles. 3. Where were you educated? I did my two years of advanced painting in Bombay and then I came to Baroda. It was the oldest school as far as the Faculty of Architecture was concerned at that time. I had applied at JJ, Bombay, Delhi and Baroda. I visited all the colleges and out of the three I liked Baroda the most and so I came here. AT that time there were teachers like Prof. M. B. Dave who was also the state architect for the state of Hyderabad and Prof. Jadhav who was the State architect for Baroda. 4. What was the effect of the British Colonial Architecture on the architects of the period? What was the situation of Architecture at that time? Most of the practicing architects then were influenced to a greater or a lesser degree by the Colonial British architecture. Their sense of aesthetic and their judgment of proportion was far better than the senses of architects of the present generation. Architecture in India and its practice was in its infancy. It was a period of transition. Modernism had just begun to make its presence felt. The theory of orientations according to climate and environment had also gained credence. But the general aesthetic had started to deteriorate even then. The architects of that period were Gregson, Bately and King, Episcopo, etc.. At that time architects could only be afforded by the rich and the very rich people. It wasn't meant for the middle class people. At that time the a lot of styles were emerging but a lot of it was restricted to Architecture of the Facade. A room was a room and there wasn't much that could be done about it. The present interpretations of space were not considered valid back then. The Volume of the built mass was used to show the power of the person it was built for. 5. Did you perceive a vacuum after the British left? You see, after the British left, there was a lot of confusion which followed. This confusion has reflected in the attitude of the people of the country and the architect is one of them. In the present context I would say that there is hardly a sense of aesthetic that is prevailing in this country today. In the earlier times everything that the architects did, they were emotionally involved. It is this feeling towards the profession that is lacking today. Most of the architects practicing today are young and are born after Independence. The Neo-rich culture of today is in no condition to promote such a sense among the professionals. Their priority is to flaunt their richness. The architect gets the freedom but he is so poor in his aesthetical sense and he is not able to utilize the money and the resources available to him to create good architecture. 6. Who were your heroes? Whose work would you say has impressed and influenced you the most? I respect all the master architects because all of them had something to say. They were absolutely perfect in their architectural statements. I have tried to understand this perfection and the philosophy behind their working style. Mies, for example, had achieved excellent standards of aesthetic in the Barcelona Pavilion way back in the thirties. Less is more was his dictum and it is not boring at all. The delicacy of a steel stanchion, which was machine made, circumvented the limitations inherent to its making, and yet was one of the most beautiful parts of the building. I consider that all masters have taken real pains to establish a system. In the Indian context I have tried to practice and evolve something. I have yet to succeed on that front. But the effort goes on. Amongst Indian architects, I respect the work of Doshi, Raje, Correa, Kothari. But they fall in a totally different category than the masters. I feel that very few architects detail out buildings as perfectly as the masters did. I feel that an architect should understand his materials thoroughly. His emotional feeling for his architecture should reflect in his detailing of the buildings. 7. As a young architect what were your concerns? My concern as a young architect and even today is that everybody, especially architects, concerned with the building industry directly or indirectly should try to deliver the best product to the clients. There are a lot of foreign collaborations coming up today which is a good sign. The architect can and should demand from the building industry for the best quality product. Architects should train themselves in the use of the newer and better materials coming up as a result of these collaborations so as to fulfill their obligations to society. This is my basic concern because the building technology prevalent in India today is very primitive and our education system should begin to acknowledge this shortcoming within itself and adapt to the times. I am also very much concerned about the energy crisis which is going to take a very serious turn. 8. What were the difficulties and problems that you faced as a young architect? I did not face too many problems when I started out in 1962 July. At that time my Prof. Dave and Mr Suryakant Patel who were both my teachers were practicing in this town. The population of this town was about 70,000 and there were not too many architects practicing in this town at that time. So the mad rush that exists today was not there. Mr. Suryakant Patel had impressed Baroda with his good architecture which helped in bringing a certain degree of awareness among the people in Baroda. As I was from Bombay, I had a slight advantage due of my professional attitude towards my work. Also, having grown up in a family aesthetic awareness and the love for detailing was inherent in my work it worked wonders for me. I will always continue to practice in the same spirit and I feel that I am growing younger day by day. 9. What is your perception of the younger generation of architects? We are basically practicing under the influence of the masters in India. The younger architects are very reluctant to use the newer materials and finishes. We have these notions of exposed concrete and brick being beautiful. But these are not the only materials available otherwise the innovations of material would not have come about. Everybody should start experimenting with the different materials. Tell me, Can you as a young architect of today's generation imagine a building in India done in stainless steel? What would you do if the client demanded such a thing? Are you going to tell him that he has to use exposed brick and exposed concrete because you are afraid to use any other material? One should take it up as a challenge. You can demand total liberty in design and in the way the material is used and then create an architectural object satisfying your and his aspirations which would essentially be timeless. I believe in timeless architecture it should retain its character and freshness even after ages pass. For such work to come up one's architectural detailing has to be extraordinarily good. You see, good architecture is invariably characterized by simple detailing. The trick lies in creating simple and beautiful details so that their implementation is possible. In almost all my works, detailing is of prime importance. 10. What would be your advice to a fresh architect beginning his own practice today? I feel that fresh architectural graduates should not be permitted by the governing institution to start their own practice immediately. I say this because the present educational system does not teach the practical aspects of architecture to the extent they are necessary. The six month apprenticeship period is insufficient. The general standard of the apprentice trainee is so pathetic that he or she can barely trace and draft properly. Drafting is the primary language of architecture. Architecture is not instant poetry. It starts from an engineering science where a lot of basic problems are sorted out. Only after this is achieved can the architecture attain the level of the sublime. It is necessary for the student to understand the number of processes that a design goes through on paper before it is built. Any mistake in the drawing can create bad workmanship, mishaps even bad architecture. This aspect is totally ignored in the schools. As an architect one has to coordinate nothing less than 15 different agencies of work. An architect has to demonstrate a reasonable degree of proficiency in all these areas before he begins practice. This has automatically reflect in his design also. In the absence of such skills, the consultant will start dominating and the design suffers. Such an immense amount of experience can only be had by working with a good firm of architects for a reasonable amount of time before one ventures to start his own practice. A client comes to an architect with his savings and aspirations of a lifetime. He makes the architect a trustee of the money and the aspirations. The architect's duty is to translate these aspirations and dreams of the client into reality using this money. The responsibility of an architect is tremendous. If the architect blunders the dreams of the client are murdered. Architecture remains forever whether it is good or bad. I urge the architects and people concerned with the building industry to give our profession the true respect and position in society it deserves. 11. Most of your work is known for its uniqueness of approach and Design. Could you describe your working style? I am very emotionally attached to my work. Whenever a client comes to me I try to understand his needs. Very often the client does not understand himself very well. I try to understand him and the things that make him tick. It also becomes very important to understand the ego of the client within the framework of society, relatives etc.. As an architect sometimes one has to play the role of a Psychologist to understand the personality of the client before one designs. 12. Could you explain how sketching aids design process in your architecture ? How is sketching important to you in your architecture ? I believe that sketching is most important. You cannot sit on the table with a set square and a parallel and start designing straight away. If you are emotionally attached to your work then sketching really becomes an indispensable tool in designing. I would put it like this that when one is sketching one can think about a multitude of things which are going to influence the design. They could be the client, his program, your philosophy, the site, the environment and so on. It is often like doing Yoga. Most of my projects have evolved from conceptual sketches which are not larger than 2" x 2". Sketches are a precise documentation of the thought process that goes on in one's mind while one is designing. 13. Due to the advent of Computers very few architects tend to sketch. Do you believe technology can replace the good old charcoal stick or the pencil? No. Not at all. The computer is a man made machine with limitation and it does not have any emotions. This is what I believe. A computer is similar to the instruments one uses and it definitely is very useful in today's context but it will be a long time before one is able to design an emotional computer! There is a common belief among youngsters and the general public that designs done on a computer are better. But that is a myth. The computer is being used effectively as a marketing tool by many. For me it is nothing more than a tool.
