Samira Rathod, Principal, Samira Rathod Design Associates writes about the predicaments and opportunities of practising interior architecture in India – a context where the discipline is disorganised and there is lack of clarity on the role of design consulting in the interior space.
Practice
To write about interior design as a practice is very tough since we do not see Interior design as a formal, organised discipline in India. The profession, at some level, has bifurcated the practice of spatial design into the profession of an architect, the interior designer, and the stylist. There is an architecture of the city which is homogenous and perhaps monotonous – boxes everywhere and in this landscape, you encounter occasional vivacious buildings. The idea of modern architecture that revolved around a consistent architecture with all in-between spaces for community living has found a perverse version in our modern cities. I believe that the design of interior space is closest to the human scale and thus, the experience of architecture itself.
Being equipped to deal with space in its many scales and forms, I find myself comfortable in dealing with the interior space. I have an understanding that the interior space is also where both I and my client want to express themselves. Over the years, I have come to a realisation that this space has to be designed in collaboration with the people who are to use it. I want everything to have a certain connection that comes through deliberate design. The interior space is no longer a styled ensemble but a specific piece of architecture that is made in close conversation with the client and it is a conversation which enables both to grow.
Craftsmanship & Making
As creative thinkers – architects, artists, musicians – all of us have a desire to make something original. The more you pursue that desire the more you discover a unique and perhaps an unprecedented way of doing things that you believe is your own. As one keeps at working on something with a certain rigour and consistency, one develops a degree of mastery in dealing with the said material, medium or technique. This is very different from developing a style that has visual attributes. I am increasingly beginning to understand that there is nothing that I do not like. There is no material that I have a distaste for and no process that I do not want to explore. When we work with materials, we recognise certain attributes of the material and we recognise that as we work with them, they begin to manifest themselves in a particular way that is appreciated by all and this I believe is a reflection of the honesty with which the design process works.
There was a time in history where honesty in expression had a connection with an idea of permanence: an idea that the works of architecture and design will last forever but this idea is in transition now and is challenged by more ephemeral aspects of design. We do not want permanence anymore. We want change and this shift of perception has essentially altered the parameters of design.
I have grown with the idea of craftsmanship or ‘karigari’. While drawings communicate much of design, the feedback from the design can be clearly articulated on the site. I am constantly talking to the person who is executing the design and this process of conversing while executing helps me understand the ‘making’ of the design. There is a lot of control, and yet there is serendipity. I believe that by making things, one can grasp the act of building and this urge to create or make something and to dismantle or break something in order to understand it is always present in children. This instinctive response to material and crafting is something that no instruction can help develop.
Indian Context
The way Interior Design discipline is being shaped up in India presently, in my opinion, inclines towards styling and décor. A good stylist can have a great eye for the texture and the detail of the space but styling has its limitations. If a project on a shoe-string budget is presented to the stylist, the stylist is most likely to find issues with the budget. A designer, on the other hand, is equipped to deal with the challenge. Our design education is myopic. We do not teach design to create individuals who can look at a problem with a conviction that the solution lies in design. This visceral connection that design has with human interaction is missing from the majority of discussions in the design schools: the experience of holding a cup when one drinks tea can bring great joy to the act of drinking tea.
I would stress on all design students to work with a fabricator or a carpenter or even work in a textile factory to have a direct and a first-person engagement with the material and with the process. As architects, one is supposed to have a licence to practice but as an interior designer, there is no such process and this is perhaps where the discipline of interior design in India needs to mobilise. Presently, there is no fraternity; only a club of stylists.
To conclude, I must address the significance and also, the insignificance of the image in the design. The image plays a constructive and disruptive role in the design. With Pinterest, the solution is visible and once the image is made explicit, the discussion on regionalism and individuality that is central to the design of the interior space loses traction with the user or the client. Design dwells in the idea of enhancing the experience through design and an image can cut that process drastically short, thus invariably diminishing the experience.
We invest very little in research and intellectual development of the project and the institutional work that goes into building a practice has to be subsidised by the practice. When we innovate, a failed experiment and a successful one cannot be judged separately – that is the basis of research in practice. We do not have patronage for research in India especially in the domain of design. We are disorganised as a discipline and casual in our work culture. I think if we, as designers, organise ourselves better in the fraternity, we can change the perception of patronage but on the other hand, this informal culture of making allows one to make mistakes. It is affordable to make mistakes in India and that is the most important idea – the one that makes all the difference ⊗
SAMIRA RATHOD is the Principal and Founder of Samira Rathod Design Associates – an acclaimed experimental and critical contemporary design practice in India. She is the editor and creator of SPADE and Founder and Director of SPADE India Research Cell which researches the condition and impact of design in India. Her recent venture ‘The Big Piano’ looks at furniture as objects of art and craft that can render a visceral experience to material and design. She is an adjunct faculty member at the Kamala Raheja Institute of Architecture in Mumbai and has been invited to be a part of juries and panels all over the country and abroad.
