The word ‘aesthetics’ has become synonymous with classy, elegant, fashionable and trendy nowadays. It is used carelessly and loosely, at times, when describing a work of art, a building, a painting, a sculpture, an interior or a dress. I say ‘carelessly’ and ‘loosely’ because I doubt if the users of the word actually understand its origin, its theoretical basis, its associations and the larger social and political realm associated with it.

Being an academic and practitioner in the field of architecture, I think it is important to generate an informed discourse around ‘aesthetics’ in any design-related field and to create awareness of the various dimensions of this term.

The word is derived from the Greek ‘aisthetikos’, which is a branch of philosophy that relates to how beauty is expressed, perceived and viewed by different segments of society. Literally, aesthetics is translated as ‘beauty’ (Merriam Webster Dictionary translates it as “of, relating to, or dealing with aesthetics or the beautiful”), which is problematic for two reasons.

Firstly, how can an entire branch of philosophical study be translated into a single word? Secondly because ‘beauty’ in itself is subjective, according to Western understanding. Unpacking this further, one can state that if ‘beauty’ is subjective, then aesthetics becomes subjective too, thus the equation doesn’t hold much ground. It is safer to translate aesthetics as “a branch of philosophy dealing with the mental state that a spectator brings to or undergoes either in response to artworks or to nature.”

When philosophers talk about aesthetics, they are interested in the interaction between artworks and their viewers. The task of a philosopher of aesthetics is to attempt to say what is distinctive about an aesthetic experience, in contrast to other sorts of experiences. What, for instance, is the difference between an aesthetic experience and the experience of analysing a computer program (apologies to all computer programmers out there)?

Should aesthetics, as understood by the West, be the end-all and be-all of architectural practice in a country such as Pakistan? Or do we need to rethink what aesthetics means in our social and cultural milieu?

In essence, the aesthetic theorists are interested in spelling out the ‘special’ interaction a viewer has with an artwork and highlight how interacting with a piece of art is different from, say, buying groceries, cleaning the house or filling tax forms. Thus, an artwork with which we engage at a contemplative level, as opposed to performing a practical task, is what originates in us an aesthetic experience. Creators of art forms are interested in having an audience — thus both the artwork and the audience together create this aesthetic experience and are equally responsible for it.

Yes, there are certain universal fundamentals of design that are mentioned in Western literature that are the guiding principles for objects and works of art to have that aesthetic appeal. Some of these are unity, complexity, intensity, variety, hierarchy, proportion, scale, balance, alignment, contrast, rhythm and repetition.

But, in a way, these guiding principles are naïve because they do not take into consideration the entire spectrum within which art of any form is created; thus the entire process of creation needs to link up to (a) the act of creation (b) the socio-cultural context within which it is created and (c) the message that is being put across by the creation.

In other words, the process of decision-making needs to be deconstructed with respect to power relations, local capacities and contextual realities and the way the produced object eventually impacts society.

Aesthetics and the debate around it in Western literature is subjective, but our contextual literature terms aesthetics and its understanding as objective. In Urdu and in Arabic, aesthetics is translated as ‘jamaliat’ — from the word ‘jamal’, which is again literally translated as ‘beauty’. But beauty here is not subjective and dependent on the eyes of the beholder. It is objective, absolute and not debatable as it is associated with ‘haq’ (truth). The larger premise is the theory of existence, connected to the divine order or the order of the cosmos.

The theory goes that, as the universe is a reflection of truth, and man is a microcosm of this larger reality, thus man is the truth and the perfect creation. And since a creation by the Ultimate Divine cannot be questioned, the universe nor the beauty of His creations can be questioned.

Similarly, as nature is also created by the Divine Supreme, that in itself is perfect too, and is a reflection of the ‘truth’ that we all are seeking. If one were to deconstruct and understand His creation in depth, one would realise that they are all based on ‘proportions’ — and these are ‘perfect proportions’ which help attain an aesthetic quality, beauty and greater harmony.

The word is derived from the Greek ‘aisthetikos’, which is a branch of philosophy that relates to how beauty is expressed, perceived and viewed by different segments of society. Literally, aesthetics is translated as ‘beauty’ (Merriam Webster Dictionary translates it as “of, relating to, or dealing with aesthetics or the beautiful”), which is problematic for two reasons.

When architects design buildings, they use a creative process to rationalise these different requirements to create a unified whole. Evolution in technology plays a vital part in the change or evolving end result of architectural concepts. For instance, change in construction economics and buildings design takes the focus away from masonry and towards mass production and the articulation of the built form as podium, services, framework and envelope (ability to keep exterior elements out and interior elements inside). A case in point is the curtain wall — an outer covering of a building in which the outer walls are non-structural, utilised only to keep the weather out. It is often used in unsuitable cultural and climate situations.

Technological maximisation is also influenced by bureaucracy, ideology and image-building for a city. For instance, in order to join the league of global cities, Karachi has experienced the construction of a number of glass façade buildings, followed by endless efforts to air-condition the buildings and fight extreme heat events.

Technology should be applied with sensitivity towards culture instead of the objective always being economies of scale, like mass production. Such an application takes away from local aesthetics and moves towards an ideological image which is global and, more than often, disconnected from the local context. This may lead to the built form being seen as a free-standing object as merely an exhibit of technology or the occasion for a spectacular aesthetic display.

Then there is something which is termed as ‘gimmickry’ in architecture, as stated by architect Arif Hasan. Gimmickry, from the word ‘gimmick’, are cheap and quick solutions for achieving a certain outlook/ solution and an end result that connects to a certain type of aesthetics. Such buildings do not have a deep thought process to fall back on, and their designs are only skin deep or, in the case of the buildings, ‘façade deep’.

Thus, the inside may or may not connect to the outside. The idea is to attract attention, shouting out ‘look at me!’ Many of the recent architectural marvels could fall within this category, especially the tall and tallest buildings of Karachi, clad in glass and steel, which are disconnected with the social, economic and physical contextual realities.

These buildings end up creating an aesthetic which forces one to question the contextual, historical and pedagogical contributions that they are making and the type of space they are propagating.

As a society, we need to understand ‘aesthetics’ and the connotations associated with it and, when it comes to the built form and the buildings that we see coming up all around us, we need to question what they are reflecting? How are they connecting with our socio-spatial realities?

In essence, we need to become our own critics, in order to understand the practice of making buildings and their designs responsive, rather than dogmatic, to evoke a sense of aesthetics that is real, practical and relatable.

The writer is an architect, urban researcher and assistant professor at NED University of Engineering and Technology and can be reached at suneela_mail@yahoo.com

Published in Dawn, EOS, June 27th, 2021