SUSHANT SCHOOL OF ART AND ARCHITECTURE

Aspects of curriculum in the architectural education

of India: A comparison to the Bauhaus model

ANUSHKA ARORA
4/8/2018
Table of Contents

Introduction 2

Chapter 1: Bauhaus concept and styles 3

Chapter 2: Origin of architectural education in India 4

Chapter 3: Advent of architecture in India in relevance to Bauhaus 5

Conclusion 7

References 8

Abstract

1
The Bauhaus, a German word meaning "house of building", is considered as one of the earliest
and most influential design theories. From what started out as a 20th century modernist art
school, came to change the very perception of the way design and fine arts is now. The
education system is immersed completely in the Bauhaus ideals and techniques but it is
important to re-evaluate these ideals in relevance to the Indian context. The paper aims to
discuss this shift focusing on importance of art in architecture as compared to that of
technology. Through various examples, the paper puts forth the merits and demerits of both.

METHODOLOGY

This paper explores theoretical ideas of how the Bauhaus techniques in comparison to Indian
architectural education are still relevant. Drawing up a comparative analysis, it aims to discuss
the equivalent role of art and technology in architecture as stressed upon by Bauhaus and now
by the Indian curriculum. A timeline of Indian architectural colleges is used to justify the existing
education system in India and their validity in today’s academic world.

LITERATURE REVIEW

1. Principles of Possibility: Considerations for a 21st-Century Art & Culture Curriculum. Art
Education by Olivia Gude stresses upon the how curriculum should reflect the present
time.
2. The Bauhaus movement and its influence in graphic design, visual communication and
architecture by Konstantinos Kyriakopoulos talks about how Bauhaus methods are
reflected in all the contemporary works.
3. Art Education by Walter Gropius enlists the Bauhaus principles and teaching curriculum.

INTRODUCTION

Founded with the notion of “total” work of art, the school surfaced out of late 19 th century
aspirations to reunite applied arts and manufacturing in order to change the education system.
This revolutionary art school in Germany was started by the architect, Walter Gropius whose
vision was to unite the multiple art forms in the material world. Supported and carried forward
by a team of artists and visionaries in their field, soon this approach spread to various parts of
the world. The ideals that drove Gropius to open this institution revolved around the
amalgamation of arts & crafts and technique. Gropius wanted to return to attitudes of the
medieval ages, before craft and manufacturing drifted apart. The vision of Bauhaus demanded
inclusion of all artistic media, including graphic design, industrial design, typography, interior
design and architecture.

This idea of aesthetically and functionally appeasing objects or structures was shared by artists
that further led to the propagation of this ideology. These teachers greatly influenced the art
education system starting from Europe to the United States and slowly to the rest of the world.
Soon, the Bauhaus teaching methodology became one of the most prominent philosophies of
art. Till date, the bases of all art institutions shadow the Bauhaus curriculum.

BAUHAUS: CONCEPT AND STYLES

2
Central to the school’s operation was it’s distinctive curriculum. Aware of the gap between the
artists and fabrication industry, Gropius sought to bridge this distinction at the expense of young
artists rebelling against the old conventional art academies. He wanted to give students the
opportunity to grow and develop ideas that would be part of a realistic world (Hoffa, 1961). The
Bauhaus educational framework was in the manner of a wheel diagram, structured in three tiers.
The outer ring represented the Vorkurs, a six month preliminary course that consisted of
elementary training in art particularly on the contrasting properties of forms, colors and
materials. The second tier included a three year course formlehre which focused on the
technical approach and finally the third tier of three years again was titled werklehre, a practical
workshop that varied in course because of the talent and skill of a particular individual. At the
center of the program were courses specializing in building construction that helped students
rationalize their art.

Bauhaus was so designed so as to break down the conventional knowledge that students had
before they entered the institution. The aim was to start fresh and make the students re-learn
and reconnect with nature and materials in a new way. One of the teachers that were
responsible for this was Johannes Itten, who believed that education “build the whole man as a
human being” (Raleigh, 1961). Ittens approach was through speculation of color theory and
contrast. Abiding by the Bauhaus ideals of analysis as well as free expressions, he tended to
romanticize his views of art. This view, at that time in the 20th century was opposed to the other
art movements such as De Stijl, Constructivism and mainly the Die Brücke Movement in
Dresden. In comparison, Die Brücke reached back to the traditional forms of expressions
including carvings and sculpting. This led to a more direct and simplified approach to
architecture and form.

As opposed to the skilled masters that taught in Bauhaus, the founding members of the Die
Brücke had not received any education in the visual arts. Both movements shared the idea of
freedom of expressions but Die Brücke stressed its value on escaping the intellectual institution
altogether.

ORIGIN OF INDIAN ARCHITECTURAL EDUCATION

3
Post the start of this movement, the world had consequently seen multiple art movements
throughout which Bauhaus stuck. Many artists deemed famous today, come from the Bauhaus
School. Although, the formwork for each institution may have started from Bauhaus, the concept
of it is a little lost in the 21st century. A survey into India’s past and present status in architectural
education begins with a recognition that while the activity has been practiced for centuries, it’s
knowledge has been passed on from master craftsmen much like those at Bauhaus. The
pedagogical structure that entered from the West at the advent of the modern college level
education has more or less remained. The origins of the profession cast it as an engineering
discipline. Contemporary architectural education was established first in the 1850’s by the
government. Art schools were focused on training draftsmen to assist British engineers who
were employed to design and construct buildings. These schools only provided fundamental
knowledge necessary to produce functionally equipped individuals. Later, as architecture
institutions were established, the objectives were vocational in nature. Efforts were made to
mimic the courses that were taught in Europe, but the true spirit of it was lacking.

One of the first modern schools to introduce a structured course of architecture in India was ‘J.J
School of Architecture’. The academic tradition set by that time had a technical bias. Schools
like J.J. were often treated like technical institutions with a department of architecture. A
thorough grounding in Arts and Crafts that was once laid out as a prerequisite by Bauhaus in
architectural training started to lose its essence. Engineering and construction course took up
majority of the curriculum. Pervading core architectural qualities, the entrance criteria itself
requires proficiency in science subjects at the high school level. Other celebrated colleges of
that time, such as Indian Institute of Technology believed that India will only thrive under
scientific temper and advancement. Disregarding core subjects that substantiate the origin of
architecture, functionality became the key aspect. The study of design as well was treated as a
programmatic problem. Thus, this trend and the absence of humanities and liberal arts
portrayed a shift from the Bauhaus techniques. Arts students soon led to search on their own,
the values and ideas of architecture.

The first schools, the school of Baroda, ensured to include humanities in the course material.
The school with an excellent existing liberal arts program engaged students in exploring ideas of
modernity under prominent personalities. The curriculum thereafter, put together, included
courses in humanities and the Beaux Arts emphasis on the 'making of architecture', that is,
one's ability to put together a building properly, the tectonics of architecture was incorporated in
the pedagogy. At that time, due to small universities, there was increased interaction between
students from various fields adding to the diversity of the curriculum. Lasting only for a while,
architecture drifted away from fine arts. Adhering to a typical mind frame and engineering as a
more rational profession, the successive deans and faculty failed to understand the unique
blend of technology, humanities, and aesthetics in architecture. They were focused on setting it
as a utilitarian and problem solving profession that churned out functional designs. The role of
the school in setting it’s image in the society played an important role. Instead of producing
visionaries, the aim was to feed graduates that readily fit into practicing offices and firms. Thus,
the students too thought in a similar way and focused on getting done with school as fast as
they can in order to actually learn something in offices.

4
ADVENT OF ARCHITECURE IN INDIA IN RELEVANCE TO BAUHAUS

The Council of Architecture in India established as a statutory body in the early seventies to
oversee and set the course for architecture. Taking into account the earlier path laid out for the
course, the council was to regulate the course into a design disciple steering away from the
problem solving criteria. It used the fundamental idea from the preliminary course of Bauhaus as
a ‘springboard’ to their curriculum. Carving out a five year course with distinct stages with
specific objectives, the initial wheel diagram has slowly disintegrated to an open ended C,
ending at an unresolved stage in terms of design and functionality.

RE-INTERPRETATION OF THE BAUHAUS WHEEL DIAGRAM ACCORDING TO INDIAN

ARCHITECTURAL CURRICULUM

STAGE I
Condensed
theoretical input

STAGE 2
Detailed study of
theory.perception of form &
color
STAGE 3
Building construction
and form follows
function

STAGE 4
Diversification and
upgradation of principles

STAGE 5
PRACTIC
AL
TRAINING

CORE 50%
Design
TECHNOLOGY
30% Graphic
HUMANITIES Study of Construction
20% materials
Theory of art survey and
Visual art & leveling
History Building and
environmental
services
Theory of
structures

5
Conforming to the changing trend, the school of Architecture at Ahmedabad actively supported
the role of arts equivalent to that of technicality in architecture. Guidelines laid out by the able,
BV Doshi under the tutelage of Louis Kahn and Corbusier introduced a high degree of
consciousness for traditional ideas and openness to new ideas. Going back to the Bauhaus
roots, the school broke away from the fixed curriculum and adapted a more open curriculum
with electives in the later stages. The two most important additions that are important even
today were the introduction of measured drawings of historical buildings and a thesis program
that requires the undergraduate to write a dissertation on a subject of their choice. This decision
has now led to a variety of subjects to choose from as well as a portfolio of documentation on
Indian architecture. It ensured the sensitivity of students towards their heritage as well as
potential in critical thinking to not accept anything without adequate scrutiny.

Referring back to the diagram in relation to the school in Ahmedabad, the school tried to fast
track the entire learning process in order to cover all aspects laid down by the council of
architecture. Thus, attempts to regain the Bauhaus principles remained half-hearted and
incomplete. As much as the students were able to understand architecture in comparison to
others, they were less able to put together a building. This led to graduates from Ahmedabad
University acquiring a somewhat justifiable title of “talkers rather than doer’s”. In brief, significant
architectural issues were related or derived from the colonial past of India. The jump-start
succeeded in spreading Bauhaus ideals or western education but failed to replace the existing
old tradition.

Although, the diagram represents the efforts of the council to provide a wholesome course,
instituted with good intentions, the clear identity of architecture as a design activity has faded.
Ensuring the minimum level of performance, the universities are not motivated to go beyond the
minimum. From recent developments in the society, it is clear that the focus of education is on
the “function, analysis and economy” (Raleigh, 1961, p.286) Even with this change, teachers
are unwilling. Art educators have found comfort in teaching the design principles as laid out by
the Bauhaus leaders. It is also known that teachers often teach how they were taught (Hoffa,
1961).

In today’s date, given the architectural education’s established alignment with ‘hard’ rather than
the ‘soft’ sciences, the absence of experience and spacial quality was observed to be lacking.
With the added eligibility of humanities students with mathematics as the one prerequisite
reflected a shift to the earlier approaches. In order to deflect from the ‘vocational’ orientation of
an architect, the student should always seek renewal. Colleges play a key role in this
continuous re-evaluation and reconstruction of boundaries. To achieve this, institutions should
focus on design as a propositional activity. Alongside core skills, the students should be able to
distinguish the built from the needs of an individual. Secondly, learning cannot be left as an
abstract goal. It’s necessary for the practical application of learning in the form of drawings,
models, documents, and other tangible traces. Lastly, the focus should not only be on the
students but the faculty as well. As observed from the Bauhaus teachings, the professors
shaped the curriculum.

6
Circling back to the question of does the teaching of pure arts such as drawing, painting,
ceramics, sculpture and such necessary within the curriculum of architectural education
(Bauhaus model)? Are these required to be taught for the enhancement of creativity and
imaginativeness? Or are we training the students to be architects or simply graduates? The
answer lies under the re-evaluation of architecture under the microscopic eye of the industry
and Bauhaus concludes it as value loaded activity. The distinction between information and
application is becoming crucial to this profession. Thus, from above examples, it can be derived
that curriculum is content based whereas the pedagogy is process based. It is not just the
curriculum but the space provided to experiment and learn to broaden ones horizons is what
matters.

Addressing the relevance of teaching schools in today’s date, it can be said that the origin of all
art schools is from Bauhaus but it appears that the philosophy behind these teachings has been
lost. The time and freedom that was allotted to student during the Bauhaus era to tackle these
principles and theories is lost. Focus on elements of form, color, rhythm exists but the entire
process is fast-tracked. Today, the concept of time is money is consciously or unconsciously is
always present. Students are not given an “aesthetic problem” and challenged to find a solution
(Tavin et al, 2007). The limitation of this resource is becoming the shortcoming of the course.

CONCLUSION

The question of how much art is really required in architecture still remains undecided.
Architecture as established over the years is the design of places for the people. Places those
are appropriate to and in sync with their immediate context. Setting aside functionality alone, it
aims at places that respond to human needs. Being a wholesome profession, an architect’s duty
is to put together a unique building that represents their ideals as well as the unhindered
technicality that goes in it. It should reflect the values of the society which support a particular
decision. In conclusion, the 3 tier structure once devised according to the 19th century may not
be relevant today. Although, it is notable that Bauhaus is deeply imbedded in our education, in
relation to the prevalent culture, the combination of art and technique is a very important tool
that needs to be emphasized upon more than it was before. These changes point to a re-
evaluation of both the nature of the activity we call architecture as well as the training of
architects. Education in architecture, thus cannot simply be to meet the pre-requisites but to
look beyond the regular and stimulate a culture of criticism that is conspicuously absent in our
country. The need for sense of exploration that is associated with a process of discovery need
to be capitalized by both the students and the teachers in the architectural learning. Most
importantly, we must remember that Bauhaus’s main ideals to foster individual creative potential
was, is and will always be relevant to the society.

REFRENCES

ONLINE REFERENCES

7
• Borted, Larissa, Bauhaus Movement Overview and Analysis".
[Internet]. 2018. TheArtStory.org
• Chandavarkar, Prem. Regulating Architectural Education in India, an Approach Paper.
New Delhi: Architexturez Imprints, 2004.
• "Die Brücke Movement Overview and Analysis". [Internet]. 2018. TheArtStory.org
• Gude, O. (2007). Principles of Possibility: Considerations for a 21st-Century Art &
Culture Curriculum
• Hoffa, H. (1961). Walter Gropius innovator. Art Education
• Mehta, Jaimini. Towards a New Pedagogy. New Delhi: Architexturez Imprints, 2001.
• Mehta, Jaimini. Architectural Education in India, an Overview. Vadodara, India, 2006.
• Raleigh, H. P. (1968). Johannes Itten and the background of modern art education.

DOCUMENTS

• Delhi School of Design In GREHA (गृह) Curriculum Development, Edited by MN Ashish

Ganju. GREHA. Delhi, India: Greha, 1986.
• Curriculum at SA, CEPT, 1976 In Pedagogy - Course Curriculum at CEPT University,
1963-2001, Edited by Neelkanth Chhaya, Pratyush Shankar and Vishwanath Kashikar.
FA - CEPT University Booklet Series. Ahmedabad: Faculty of Architecture, CEPT
University, 2011.
• Delhi School of Design In GREHA (गृह) Curriculum Development, Edited by MN Ashish
Ganju. GREHA. Delhi, India: Greha, 1986.