He produced unique architectural expressions by responding to living patterns, energy issues, and the nature of changes in society
The prominence given to obituaries of Charles Correa, who died on June 16 in Mumbai at the age of 84, ought to have reassured us that a great architect has been duly honoured and the value of design recognized. But strangely it did not.
Many of the obituaries did what Megan Garber of The Atlantic 1 complained such essays often do – ‘denude, by design.’ By ignoring critical facts, idealising Correa and overlooking the banalities of our milieu, they created a false impression that architecture is highly valued in India, its importance as public art is recognised, that bright professionals are nurtured, and the future is secure.
As an ungrateful nation basked in the great architect’s glory, it overlooked the fact that the builders who came to dominate the Indian urbanscape had ignored Correa in the last years of his life. Hardly any worthy commissions in India came his way in the last decade and a half. “I’m glad I stopped [practicing],” he told The Guardian2in 2013, adding that “architecture has become too mundane” to interest him. These bitter words were not a case of sour grapes but a sad reflection on the state of architecture in the country.
Architects concerned about the current state of affairs do not help by focusing only on Correa’s successes, idealizing him, and even constructing a hagiography. Correa was a master of surfaces and spaces, but when he strayed away from his convictions, he produced uninspiring buildings. He also knew how to change course and shared his educative experience with others. His failures were as instructive as his successes. As he himself used to say, architecture needs a critical outlook and healthy debate.
...