Architect: Difference between revisions

From FIBIwiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
← Older editNewer edit →
Nick Adams (talk | contribs)
231 edits
No edit summary
Nick Adams (talk | contribs)
231 edits
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
==Architecture==
==Architecture==


Colonial Architecture reveals the progressive involvement of the British in India spanning about 400 years. Military engineers provided the first secure compounds for the East India Company’s trading posts in Madras 1639, Bombay 1668, and Calcutta 1690. As colonial influence spread so did the architecture. Edward Lutyen’s 1912-1929 New Delhi grand plan used ideas from the Garden City movement, and laid the seeds for modern Indian city planning, and is seen as the best Raj architectural legacy.  
Colonial Indian Architecture reveals the progressive involvement of the British in India spanning about 400 years. Military engineers provided the first secure compounds for the East India Company’s trading posts in Madras , Bombay, and Calcutta . As colonial influence spread so did their architecture.


Early buildings in fortified encampments were simple and functional; decoratively crenellations adorned parapets like battlements. As colonial aspirations changed from purely trading to empire, prominent buildings expressed power. This came not just from the British dominance but from their stylistic choice of Neo-Classicism to represent their cultural authority. Porticos and Doric columns were repeatedly used c for 300 years. Palladian refinement reflected social aspirations for the English elite in India. More numerous were the modest cottages and bungalows, for the many of the middle classes, that borrowed stylistically from Bengali ‘bangla’ village huts. Church architecture differed by following the prevailing English trend - from the clean lines of Christopher Wren’s English Renaissance churches to the verticality of Pugin’s  Victorian Neo-Gothic piles –they represented pure Christian values .


Architectural quality varies. Early buildings in fortified encampments borrowed from the military, using crenellated decoration to adorn parapets. Prominent buildings in key locations were built expressing power, this came not just from the dominance of the British but from their stylistic choice of Neo-Classicism to represent their cultural authority. More numerous were the modest cottages and bungalows that borrowed stylistically from Bengali ‘bangla’ village huts. Aside to this was Church architecture which differed by following the prevailing English trend - from the clean lines of Christopher Wren’s English Renaissance churches to the verticality of Pugin’s Victorian Neo-Gothic piles to represent pure Christian values.
Unlike French or Portuguese Colonialists, whose architecture was accustomed to Mediterranean needs, British designs rapidly altered adding arcades and deep verandahs to deal with the needs to shelter from sun and monsoon. Italianate designs often better suited the climatic needs, compared to pattern book English designs. Neo-Gothic variety often the choice of Venetian Gothic for in civic buildings in preference to High Gothic.


Against the dominant style of the Aesthetic Imperialists (represented by the Public Works Department who commissioned and regulated the design of most colonial buildings) there were the Native Revivalist. They thought that civic architecture should represent the people, something with a connection to the land and the past, which in later Victorian times was mirrored by William Morris’ Arts and Craft’s view - of returning to an architecture using craftsmanship and traditional methods.
Unlike French or Portuguese Colonialists, whose architecture was accustomed to Mediterranean needs, British designs rapidly altered adding arcades and deep verandahs to deal with the needs to shelter from sun and monsoon. Italianate designs often better suited the climatic needs, compared to pattern book English designs.
Many of the later universities and law courts opted for  Indo-Saracenic architecture (a mixture of Hindu, Islamic and Western elements applied to Western buildings). James Fergusson a Morris supporter, argued that copying Indian styles to be a crime, and backed the expressive use of Indian forms in architectural expression. The issue was that it was not a fusion of east and west design. Architects working in the Princely States managed this. Indigenous methods prevailed in hill stations where informal residential designs that used the best of both traditions.


Most of the designers throughout the Raj were British Army Engineers instructed in military engineering; architectural design was self learnt from practical experience, aided by architectural reference books and copy book designs. By 1870 regional differences are obvious with Bombay Public Works employing professional officers trained in architecture, while Calcutta continued to use amateur military engineers. Later, consultant architects invited from Europe included Lutyens in New Delhi, and Modernist Le Corbusier in post-colonial Chandrigarh
The quality of  local craftsmen and raw material made a difference. Bombay’s stone carvers were able to work with better grade stone than others– naturally their work was more detailed..
Frequently colonial buildings were criticized about not responding to local conditions, or being built in traditional proven local methods. The London look was achieved by stucco render over brick, and sadly many Raj buildings are falling into disrepair as the stucco peels away.


Against the dominant style of the Aesthetic Imperialists (represented by the [[Public Works Department]]) there were the Native Revivalist architects that thought civic architecture should represent the people, something with a connection to the land and the past, which in later Victorian times was mirrored by William Morris’ view - of returning to an architecture using craftsmanship and traditional methods. Many of the later universities and law courts used this Indo-Saracenic architecture (a mixture of Hindu, Islamic and Western elements). James Fergusson a Morris supporter, argued that copying Indian styles to be a crime, and backed the expressive use of Indian forms in architectural expression.




Revision as of 03:25, 11 June 2010

Architecture

Colonial Indian Architecture reveals the progressive involvement of the British in India spanning about 400 years. Military engineers provided the first secure compounds for the East India Company’s trading posts in Madras , Bombay, and Calcutta . As colonial influence spread so did their architecture.

Early buildings in fortified encampments were simple and functional; decoratively crenellations adorned parapets like battlements. As colonial aspirations changed from purely trading to empire, prominent buildings expressed power. This came not just from the British dominance but from their stylistic choice of Neo-Classicism to represent their cultural authority. Porticos and Doric columns were repeatedly used c for 300 years. Palladian refinement reflected social aspirations for the English elite in India. More numerous were the modest cottages and bungalows, for the many of the middle classes, that borrowed stylistically from Bengali ‘bangla’ village huts. Church architecture differed by following the prevailing English trend - from the clean lines of Christopher Wren’s English Renaissance churches to the verticality of Pugin’s Victorian Neo-Gothic piles –they represented pure Christian values .

Unlike French or Portuguese Colonialists, whose architecture was accustomed to Mediterranean needs, British designs rapidly altered adding arcades and deep verandahs to deal with the needs to shelter from sun and monsoon. Italianate designs often better suited the climatic needs, compared to pattern book English designs. Neo-Gothic variety often the choice of Venetian Gothic for in civic buildings in preference to High Gothic.

Against the dominant style of the Aesthetic Imperialists (represented by the Public Works Department who commissioned and regulated the design of most colonial buildings) there were the Native Revivalist. They thought that civic architecture should represent the people, something with a connection to the land and the past, which in later Victorian times was mirrored by William Morris’ Arts and Craft’s view - of returning to an architecture using craftsmanship and traditional methods. Many of the later universities and law courts opted for Indo-Saracenic architecture (a mixture of Hindu, Islamic and Western elements applied to Western buildings). James Fergusson a Morris supporter, argued that copying Indian styles to be a crime, and backed the expressive use of Indian forms in architectural expression. The issue was that it was not a fusion of east and west design. Architects working in the Princely States managed this. Indigenous methods prevailed in hill stations where informal residential designs that used the best of both traditions.

Most of the designers throughout the Raj were British Army Engineers instructed in military engineering; architectural design was self learnt from practical experience, aided by architectural reference books and copy book designs. By 1870 regional differences are obvious with Bombay Public Works employing professional officers trained in architecture, while Calcutta continued to use amateur military engineers. Later, consultant architects invited from Europe included Lutyens in New Delhi, and Modernist Le Corbusier in post-colonial Chandrigarh

The quality of local craftsmen and raw material made a difference. Bombay’s stone carvers were able to work with better grade stone than others– naturally their work was more detailed..

Frequently colonial buildings were criticized about not responding to local conditions, or being built in traditional proven local methods. The London look was achieved by stucco render over brick, and sadly many Raj buildings are falling into disrepair as the stucco peels away.


People


Other external links

Retrieved from "https://wiki.fibis.org/index.php?title=Architect&oldid=26929"