In a friendly confrontation with a group of architects the other day, I asked a question: ‘Is architecture dead in the sense that you were all advocating it until a few years ago?’ The answer came as if in a chorus—’no, it is not.’ Naturally, the counter question came—why had I asked this question so abruptly? In the conversation that followed, I told these dreamers, planners, and philosophers the reason for my doubt. Architecture as a subject has a certain degree of fluidity in terms of its perception, reception and interpretation.
Nepal Mandala is very well known for its architecture, temples, monasteries, carvings, sculptural forms and town planning. Hordes of foreign experts too have worked on these forms by acquiring skills, writing books and making designs for restoring the original shape of the towns.
We who are interested in the intangible cultural heritage of this land are literary writers, art lovers, art critics and ancient architecture savvy people, whose participation in discussions about the architectonic topics is often architected by these very architects who have wanted to broaden the subject across the society’s wider spectrum. In the same capacity, I too have participated in several meetings organised by the architects at different times, and have written reviews of the books authored by native and foreign architects. We, as theatre people and teachers of visual art theories, have found architectonic forms interesting, because the underlying element, the core spirit of the Nepali architecture, has always been performative in nature.