GAJANAN UPADHYAYAFurniture Designer

GAJANAN UPADHYAYAFurniture Designer

GAJANAN UPADHYAYA

For a poor farmer, the birth of a fourth child was not considered significant enough to be recorded, so Gajanan Upadhyaya’s exact date of birth remains unknown. For GU – his widely used appellation – however, poverty also meant a relatively unsupervised and free childhood; this included being able to skip school and spend days on end roaming in and around his village,Sarsav, near Mehsana. He recalls how the village was his playground and how he “climbed every tree and left no farm unexplored. I felt like a king, I felt like I owned the village.”

This idyllic period lasted till he was nine when the village school decided to rein him in. They sent out four older boys to carry him kicking and screaming back to the classroom, where with his sense of curiosity and sharp intelligence he flourished. On completing his primary education he was part of the first group of students who hiked 12 km per day to attend the Sarvavidyalay High School, Kadi.

At the high school GU proved to be a fast learner and a serious student, gaining an unrivalled reputation as the genius in geometry. This is probably what prompted the school principal, Mr Mohanbhai Patel to specifically ask him to be present during a function to honour an alumnus who had trained to be an architect. This proved to be pivotal moment for GU and on finishing high school, he enrolled to major in architecture at MS University in Baroda. Sarsav and his childhood was left behind but not poverty; studying during the day, GU worked a night shift at Jyoti factory’s metal workshop, located, he recalls, in a dark and dingy cellar. This too, characteristically he turned into an opportunity to learn about the use of different production tools like the milling machine and lathe, and more importantly the nature of metals and various alloys. Knowledge that years later as a designer proved to be invaluable.

In 1955, at the age of 21, GU married Kumudini, who he says

3

inspired a poor village boy to study further and strive harder, and without whom he would not have become what he did. Five years later they moved to Ahmedabad where GU joined Architect Asarpota’s office. He didn’t work there for very long but it was while he was there that he came across a design portfolio for a planned (never built) office building complex by none other than Frank Lloyd Wright. For GU this was yet another opportunity to learn; he spent hours studying the detailed and complete original set of drawings in order to understand the thinking behind Frank Lloyd Wright’s design approach.

Around that time, the Government of Gujarat set up a new architecture office, which GU joined, together with all his classmates from Baroda. And while most of them stayed on, for GU this too proved to be transient, as the work failed to be challenging, inspiring or interesting enough. So after two jobs in two years, in 1962 he joined the newly opened National Institute of Design (NID), which proved for him to be the right place at the time. NID at the time was a campus brimming with creative energy and enthusiasm. Leading designers and visionary thinkers from all over the world visited it for varying lengths of time, providing GU the continuous opportunity to work with and learn from them. Amongst many others he has worked and collaborated with Ray and Charles Eames, Louis Kahn, George Nakashima, Tapio Wirkkala from Finland, Hans Gugelot from Germany and Enrico Parsuttifrom Italy.

Also it was while at NID that GU was prompted by Gira Sarabhai to study and make a copy of Hans Wegner’s classic dining Cowhorn chair. In doing this he came to appreciate Wegner’s respect for material and construction when designing an object. This led him to adopt a similar approach in designing a chair in teakwood using basic Indian wood turning techniques. To further reduce cost of material he used German standard cross-section of wood sticks measuring 24 X 42 mm, as recommended by Hans Gugelot. The result was a functional and elegant chair with a wooden structure with a canvas seat reinforced with wooden slats, and, adjustable seat and backrest. The design, material and construction method were applied to develop a table, bookshelf and bed; even at that

4

early stage, each design is representative of GU’s distinctive style, devoid of any superfluous details, and highly cost-effective. You can take the boy out of the village but not the village out of the boy – his first chair sold for 80 Rupees.

In 1966 the village boy from Sarsav went to the Royal Danish Academy of Fine Arts in Copenhagen to further his study in furniture design. There, one of his teachers to his surprise and delight was Poul Kjærholm, a designer he had admired in his student days at Baroda, with whom he was to work during his entire stay in Denmark. As usual he excelled and impressed – the prototype award winning double folding stool he developed while there is still in an exhibit at the Royal Danish Academy right next to Poul Kjærholm’s metal folding stool. Later, on Poul Kjærholm’s recommendation, he was also to teach at the Academy.

The sixties were the golden years of Danish design. After finishing his studies GU worked for a while with Nils Fagerholt and Poul Kjærholm, before setting up his own design practice with Dan Svart and Peter Hjoert Lorenzen on Lille Strandstraede in Copenhagen. During this period he worked with some of the leading designers in Denmark, amongst them Vibeke Klint, Dorte Raaschou, Borge Mogensen, Bo Bonfils, Jens Moeller Jensen, Prof. Rigmor Anderson, and Museum inspector Werner Jakobsen. He designed furniture, glassware, ceramics, kitchen equipment, charcoal grills, fireplaces, including tools for fireplaces, alarm clocks, railway compartments even wine and whisky bottles. Projects included architecture, exhibition, furniture and industrial design. Everything was seen as a design challenge to be addressed and the key was to evolve a flexibility of thinking while at the same time strengthening his own design philosophy and vision.

In 1974 homesick for India, GU returned to Ahmedabad with his family, and a couple of years later, rejoined NID for what would become an uninterrupted twenty-year stint as senior faculty in industrial design. He established a departmental discipline and curriculum in furniture design. However, his range of teaching was not just limited to furniture design but also included product,

5

exhibition, graphics, ceramics and textile design. While at NID GU also took up consultancies, participated in several workshops and seminars, and contributed to the Institute’s efforts to develop conservation plans for places such as Fatehpur Sikri, Chidambaram (Trancobar), Brajbhoomi and Sir George Everest Park in Mussoorie.

Students who have studied over these years frequently recall GU’s passion and dedication as a teacher, mentor and guide. GU truly believed in sharing all his ideas and learning with his students. According to one of his students Sandeep Mukherjee (MD, Quetzel Designs India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore), “Our exchanges have continued way after the NID years. Till today many years after I have graduated, GU is still the same teacher who has his say on things that I do or have done, just like the way he always did in NID.”

GU also took an active interest in developing the NID campus, which all too often also showed his practical and economical approach to design. An example includes replacing the wooden slatted tops of the outdoor canteen tables (which were damaged beyond repair during the heavy 1973 monsoon floods that flooded the NID campus) with loose stone slabs, which are still there! Over the years, he has designed furniture for the students’ hostels, classrooms, library, cafeteria, and boardroom.

In 1993, prior to his retirement from NID he was invited to design furniture for the Gujarat High Court, where the lead architecture firm was HCP Design and Project Management Pvt Ltd (HCPDPM). This initial association over one project established a mutual respect that formed the basis of GU’s full time involvement with HCP group of companies where his brief can be best described as one of a highly respected “designer-at-large”.

Since then GU has turned his hand and mind to many design requirements which include low cost and economical furniture, fenestration details, and other building elements on a number of architectural projects. From 1996 onwards he has made a major contribution towards moulding TDW’s (an allied furniture company to HCPDPM) overall design approach. He has been

6

instrumental in helping develop designs that are easy toproduce and maintain and yet uncompromising as far as functionality and aesthetics are concerned. His designs include the Economical Chair, Metal Bed, Lounge Chair and Folding Chair that have been adapted from earlier versions. GU’s work at HCPDPM and TDW benefits from his knowledge, experience, creativity and clarity, and of course demonstrates his versatility, unique design aesthetics and integrity.

At home too, GU remains busy as ever; a craftsman at heart, he often stitches his own clothes, and regularly cooks with his wife and finds ample time to play host to his children and grandchildren who live abroad but come to visit often.

- Rina Dave

7

8 9

A TABLE, SIX CHAIRS AND A BUILDING

On the facing page is a photograph of a dining room. The space contains one table and six chairs and not much else. The table is eight feet long and four feet wide. The table top is made up of three planks of solid timber – one inch thick and eight feet long – held together by a frame and cross battens. The four legs of the table are also solid sections of timber, four inches square, which taper slightly as they meet the floor. The legs are tied together by four beams just below the table top. The beams are deepest where they meet the legs and reduce gently in height towards the centre. Every joint, screw and bolt that holds the table together is visible. In fact the construction of the table is so obvious and logical that anybody who cares to, can assemble or dismantle it. When dismantled, the table can virtually “pack flat”.

There are six chairs around the table. The chairs are made of the same species of timber as the table. The frame of each chair is made entirely of one inch by two inch thick sections of wood. Here too, the system of construction and each joint in the structure is deliberate and obvious. The chair seems almost too simple just like the table. But there is more to it. They are stackable – slightly wider in front and narrower at the back, with arms that widen outward for comfort but also to allow stacking. There is a complex geometry at work here which determines exactly the location, size and angle of each component of the frame – nothing is accidental. Change one dimension and the entire chair has to be changed. But this game of geometry is for the designer and craftsman to enjoy. For the user the chair is comfortable, light, sturdy and elegant. It is unobtrusive and calm. The lightly cushioned seat and gentle curve of the back evoke restrained luxury and unhurried mealtimes. The dining table and chairs occupy a space that seems to fit like a glove. It is a bare room fifteen feet long, eleven feet wide and eleven feet high with clear storey windows that light up the fair face concrete ceiling. The grey kota stone floor and white painted walls complete the picture.

10

The table, the chairs and the building seem to belong together, but in reality they span a century. The table belonged to my great-grandfather and was built in the 1890s by an anonymous craftsman, long before design and production parted ways. The chairs were designed by Gajanan Upadhyaya (GU), architect and furniture designer, in the 1970s. By then, the Modern Movement in art and architecture had peaked and influenced designers across the world – GU was no exception. The building was built in 2003 – sufficiently distanced from Modernism to realize its failings and appreciate its strengths. So what is it that connects objects or buildings designed and built a hundred years apart? What makes them seem to belong together? How do they transcend the limits of time?

The table, the chairs and the building speak the same language. This language is rooted in an approach to building and making things that is fundamental to design. Architects, designers and theoreticians have, invariably, struggled to define for themselves and the age they live in, what constitutes “good” design. The chairs, designed by GU, that sit comfortably beside the hundred year old table, in the room, embody several ideas and concepts that GU has tried and tested and struggled with in his work. His approach to design, which can also be seen in the work of a craftsman of the previous century, and a modern day architect, is what GU imbibed from his teachers and one that he has striven to pass on to his students. He rarely uses words to elaborate on his designs but there are some expressions that have become part of his vocabulary and which accurately convey his approach to design.

‘Robust’ is a word that GU uses frequently. He uses it not merely to convey strength but also the sense of being not fussy. The chairs are designed to stand the test of time, literally, in a physical sense, but also visually and aesthetically.GU uses the word ‘anonymous’ as a compliment, implying that the furniture or object in question seems to belong in its setting. As if it has always been there. It does not have to depend on a signature style or a fashion statement to give it validity. The chairs, in the photograph, would be difficult to classify as belonging to a certain

11

style or period, but their strong character allows them to hold their own in any environment. The design of the chairs is ‘honest’, in the sense that materials are used in their natural form, nothing is hidden and each joint or junction has been used as an opportunity for expression. Using ‘craftsman’s logic’, tennons are brought through to the surface, wooden plugs indicate the position of screws and joints are articulated by a thickening of the cross section of one or other member. When pressed for a label to categorize his work he says he follows a ‘construction aesthetic’. GU refers to some materials as ‘noble’– in this case Burma teak – which implies that the designer should handle them with humility. This requires a deep understanding of materials, their behaviour and limitations and an awareness of how “precious” these materials are. All the components of the chair are worked out to optimize the wood used. Nothing is in excess. The width of the arms is widened where required for comfort by adding a curved piece of wood not by taking a wider section at the outset and then narrowing it where required. ‘Generous’ when applied to the design of furniture, is a term that implies flexibility or tolerance. A design that can bend to the will of the user, that is forgiving of flaws, one that compensates for errors that are inevitable. When developing a new design, GU likens himself to a musician practicing his notes again and again, a little differently each time. He believes that it is only through ‘riyaz’ of this kind that a design reaches a stage of near perfection where nothing can be added or removed without destroying the whole. The design process is complete only when it reaches this state of equilibrium.

GU’s furniture designs, which are informed by these ideas have a timeless quality. The ideas themselves, elaborated here, are not new. We just need to be reminded of them every now and then, either by the unknown craftsman who built the table or by GU who designed the chairs or by the architect that designed the room that the table and chairs sit in. The six chairs, I am sure, will find a home someday, with another table, in another room, at another time.

- Ismet Khambatta

12

GU’s early work produced during his initial tenure at the National Institute of Design, Ahmedabad and his years in Denmark.

Round Stick Furniture, 1964, Teak, Cotton webbing, Cotton cushions, StoneOn Louis Kahn’s suggestion, GU studied Shaker Furniture and was inspired to develop a range of furniture for the Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad’s, faculty residences. The range includes an easy chair, a table and a bed. The structure is made up of turned sections of timber sourced from waste. The tennons are turned and tapered, making a cleaner joint and adding a decorative feature. All mortises are at right angles to the length of the member in order to rationalize production. The formation of the triangular frame in the chair and bed adds structural strength and visual appeal. 14

24/42 Furniture, 1964, Teak, Canvas, StoneThis range is inspired by Hans Gugelot’s designs which are simple, monastic and modern. All the components are made from 24mm x 42mm timber. The range includes: an easy chair with wood slat reinforced canvas seat and back, a centre table with marble top, working tables of various sizes with plywood and plastic laminate tops, a bed with mild steel frame and slatted base and a part open part enclosed side board storagesystem. 16

Double Folding Stool, 1966, Teak, CanvasThis design developed out of an academic exercise for GU’s teacher Poul Kjærholm. The double folding system affords structural stability inspite of the low height and allows the stool to fold absolutely flat with both top members being in the same plane and of the same length. The brass hardware used is custom designed and the reinforced linen fabric seat is removable. When folded the outline of the stool is a perfect square and the two interlocking ‘U’ frames are of the same proportion. 18

Outdoor Chair, 1969, Ash, CordThis chair inspired by the light Danish summer, won the third prize in an outdoor furniture design competition in Copenhagen. The holes in the wood frame are staggered to avoid weakening the wood and a new method of weaving the rope was developed which was much simpler and quicker than conventional ones. When folded flat the chair is only 45mm thick. 20

Folding Canvas Chair, 1969, Ash, CanvasThis chair is lightweight with a hinge that allows it to fold flat. When folded it can be stacked compactly. 22

14 Round Stick Furniture

16 24/42 Furniture

18 Double Folding Stool

20 Outdoor Chair

22 Folding Canvas Chair

2

24

Designs developed during GU’s twenty year tenure at the National Institute of Design(NID), Ahmedabad.

Classic Chair, 1978, Teak, Canvas/LeatherThis chair is designed to work both as an easy and a dining chair. The wood frame is semi knockdown and flexible enough to make it stable even on a rough floor. The seat and back required a fabric that would not elongate when stretched. GU found the perfect material in a fabric manufactured locally to make bags for pack animals. The relatively narrow 42cm width of the fabric was taken as a design constraint that then determined the width of the chair. High tensile screws were used so that the fabric could be stretched to the fullest. 26

Low Cost Furniture, 1982, Mango/Pine, Cord/ Webbing/ Cane This range of domestic furniture was developed for the NID faculty residences. The intention was to use inexpensive wood which is appropriate if used in smaller cross sections and short lengths. More resilient joints and rounded corners compensate for the inherent instability of the wood. The construction is semi knockdown and can be reassembled several times without a loss in strength. The identical seat and back can be removed for weaving and then refitted. 28

Cafeteria Chair, 1982, Mild SteelSeveral stimuli went into shaping this chair that is inspired by the spirit of Thonet’s bentwood furniture. It is GU’s first experiment with using only steel, and fully exploits mild steel tubular sections. Initially the seat of pressed metal sheet held by a tie bar, was not foldable. Many experiments finally resulted in a version which allows the seat to fold and fit within the back frame making it stackable horizontally. 30

Hostel Furniture, 1984, TeakThis chair forms part of the range developed for the NID Boys Hostel. The chair has a rigid, light weight frame which gets its unusual structural strength from mortise and tennon joints that have deliberately been moved away from the ends of the members. GU later developed a similar range for NID Girls Hostel using mainly tubular steel sections. 32

Single Folding Stool, 1984, Rosewood, Canvas/LeatherThis simple stool was developed for a Danish importer who wanted to manufacture in bulk. It has two kinds of components and no hinge. The members rest on one another when unfolded. The seat is removable. 34

Boardroom Set, 1985, Teak, Mild Steel, Ply, Veneer, LeatherThe table is designed as a system of four different modules that can be configured geometrically to accommodate varying seating requirements from an eight to a twenty seater table. The table structure is from mild steel tubular and ‘T’ sections and the top is plywood and veneer. It is designed to be used with the Arc chair. The Arc chair has a tubular steel structure with a stretched leather/canvas seat and back. 36

26 Classic Chair

28 Low Cost Furniture

30 Cafeteria Chair

32 Hostel Furniture

34 Single Folding Stool

36 Boardroom Set

38

GU’s designs for institutional furniture for the architectural projects of HCP Design and Project Management Pvt Ltd developed during his full time involvement with the firm.

Lawyer’s Chair, 1993, TeakThis chair designed for lawyers at the Gujarat High Court, has a high back and armrests to provide comfortable seating for long hours of work. It is designed for high durability with low maintenance. 40

Courtroom Seating and Office Bench, 1994, Teak, Mild SteelThese are two of the 17 items developed for the Gujarat High Court project. Modified versions of the same design are used in different areas of the project. The design draws on GU’s childhood visits to Government buildings and his urge to improve the seating arrangements for peons and other office staff. 42

Simple Sofa, 2001, Teak, Polyurethane foam, FabricThis sofa is lightweight and manageable. The seat and back are angled for maximum comfort. The armrest is widened to provide extra elbow space.

46Seminar Seating, 1997 & 2005, Teak, Mild SteelTwo different designs are developed. The first design is for Ahmedabad Management Association(AMA) building. It is a multipurpose seat and used here as a conference, library, classroom and auditorium seat. It functions with or without the tablet as per requirement. The other multiple seat is developed for the seminar room at IIMA. The double foldable tablets was specially designed for management students. The wooden seat was later modified to an upholstered version. These seats are manufactured in units of three or four and are reasonably priced. 48

Classroom Chair, 2005, Teak, Mild SteelThis design was developed for IIMA classrooms that require interaction between all the students simultaneously. It facilitates conversation with its limited revolving mechanism. The fixed base and limited swivel allow easy movement without disrupting the arrangement of the classroom. 50

Wall Hung Bench, 2005, Teak, Mild SteelThis bench in the corridor of IIMA is a version of the metal hanging chair that was developed by GU during sabbatical leave from NID in 1986. 52

40 Lawyer’s Chair

42 Courtroom Seating

44 Office Bench

46 Simple Sofa

48 Seminar Seat

50 Classroom Chair

52 Wall Hung Bench

54

GU’s association with TDW started with this initial range of designs that were developed to pack flat.

Metal Leg Table, 1998, Teak, Mild Steel, Ply, VeneerThe strength of this simple design is that it lends itself to many applications, so it isn’t just a dining table or a desk. Drawers, panels, or dividers can be added, it can also be made bigger or smaller as per requirement. It is easily assembled and dismantled without need of any tools as the legs have a screw-on arrangement. 56

Easy Chair and Work Chair, 1998, Mild Steel/Stainless Steel, Canvas/ LeatherThe designs for these chairs developed from GU’s Arc chair. Unlike the Arc chair the Easy chair and the Work chair can be dismantled and packed flat. 58

Stackable Stool, 1998, Mild SteelThese stools came about because of an existing seat mould. A taller version of the stool which is not stackable uses staggered tie members to provide foot rests at different heights and also ease construction and increase stability. 62

Metal Bed, 1998, Mild Steel, RubberwoodThis is a refined version of an earlier bed that had been designed for the NID Girls Hostel, keeping in mind the need for optimum material usage and mass production. Metal frame with wooden slats lengthwise (to stop mattress sliding sideways) that are foldable/removable to ease shifting, storing and provide variation in use. 64

Lounge Chair, 2000, Teak, Mild Steel, Canvas/ LeatherThis chair is a version of the Easy Chair. The side frames which in the Easy chair were in tubular steel have been changed to solid timber. 66

School Bench, 2003, Mild Steel, RubberwoodThis design was finalized after many trials. The unit accommodates the desk, seat and space for books for two students. It is economical to produce and is extremely sturdy. 6 8

56 Metal Leg Table

58 Work Chair

60 Easy Chair

62 Stackable Stool

64 Metal Bed

66 Lounge Chair

68 School Bench

70

GU’s continuing association with TDW has resulted in several designs being put into production which have their roots in his early work and have been continuously revised and refined by him over the years.

Folding Chair, 2000, Teak This is one of GU’s favourites and has been often revised with minor changes. Like all his folding furniture designs, in this chair also the folding members fall into parallel lines, and the chair when folded is completely flat making it very easy to store. 72

Sofa cum Bed, 2000, TeakThe design is somewhere between a futon frame and a sofa bed. The bed slides on single brass pins, and takes a light cotton mattress, which suits Indian conditions. It is easy for one person to handle, and requires very little maintenance. 74

Slat Sofa, 2001, Teak, Polyurethane foam, FabricThis sofa allows complete removal of the upholstered parts as maintenance is always an issue in upholstered sofas. In this sofa, changing of upholstery is a simple task and multiple sets of removable covers can be made to create different atmospheres. 7 6

Economical Chair, 2000, TeakThe chair is a quiet tribute to George Nakashima, who taught GU the difference between working by hand and by machine. The tie below the seat is designed with a gentle curve so that one’s legs can fit comfortably under. 78 Economical Chair with Arms, 2002, Teak A version of the Economical chair, this time with arms, follows a similar format except for its seat, which is upholstered. 80

Child’s Chair, 2003, RubberwoodAdapted from the stackable Economical chair. 82

High Back Chair, 2005, Teak This chair was GU’s first experiment with a high back. It is meant for dining but is also comfortable with a writing table. 84

72 Folding Chair

74 Sofa cum Bed

76 Slat Sofa

78 Economical Chair

80 Economical Chair with Arms

82 Child’s Chair

84 High Back Chair

MY FATHER – MY TEACHER

My father talks often of his childhood in the village. He is a good storyteller and the characters and events come alive in his tales. The rich details and colour of his stories is probably what inspired me most to come back to India in 1999 to shoot my first short film in Sarsav, the village in which he grew up. At one point while filming a scene at the village gate, the village elders who gather there to while away the hours, called me over, and asked me which village I came from. Though seemingly unfazed by the activity I was generating they were not without curiosity. I told them I belonged to Sarsav and that Gajanan Upadhyaya was my father. “Ah Gajla’s daughter”, they responded affectionately, no doubt recalling the wild and playful boy, who more often than not meant trouble!

While the stories my father told were entertaining, they also taught me a lot about the craft of my profession: It seems I learnt a lot more from him when he was not trying to teach me. As far back as I can remember my father often spent the weekends sewing, and always on the same ‘Usha’ foot pedalled sewing machine. Over time he has stitched everything from sofa upholstery, complicated curtain systems to different styles of clothes for the whole family. I remember, as a young girl too short to reach the sewing table,helping him by standing on the pedals. Later in my teens, I discovered that my father could also fashion clothes of my choice. He made various jackets or skirts for me and it was during these sessions that I learnt about his approach not only to design but also to his philosophy of life. For him sewing was another design challenge that has to be approached with the same sincerity as designing furniture systems or a building.

“Know your material and its properties,” my father would instruct me as we pulled at the material against the waft to determine its strength. Then he would work on the conceptualisation and pattern designing. He would make a series of drawings that not only met my “fashion”

or “style” requirements but also his ideal of integrity towards the final product. “Approach your design with logical reasoning and technique” he would often say, “and use the material to its maximum advantage, keeping wastage to the minimum.”

My original and pretty basic ‘idea’ of the design would quickly be replaced; “trust your ideas and be bold…and also playful” he would emphasise, and, all too often I walked away from such a project with a garment that was unlike anything my friends had – something that was functional and completely original.

Years later, as a filmmaker and editor, I too have found myself returning to many elements of his approach to design. Once when we were working on a jacket and ran into a construction problem, he advised “when you find a flaw, instead of hiding it, make it into a feature, create a rhythm.” A pearl of wisdom that I failed to fully understand at the time, but today I know that rhythm is the basis of everything I do, or of any craft for that matter. Rhythm I believe is the underlying construct that brings out the beauty of storytell-ing giving it a personality and texture.

I know that I will always keep learning from my father. I still look forward to working on projects with my father, because I know that whatever we are working on, I will get to hear more stories from his childhood in the village. I need these sessions to help reinforce my own sanity in a culture that has become more and more aesthetically chaotic.

“Design” as my father often says, ”is primarily about reaching a level of simplicity that shows very little designing.” Such simplicity, respect for materials, and structural integrity in my father’s work was, I believe born of his investigative mind growing up in the village. Since my first short film on Sarsav, I have returned regularly back to the village, and nowadays no one asks me which village I come from. They all know that I am Gajananbhai’s daughter, though sadly many of the elders have passed on, and it is my father who is now a venerable village elder.

- Rina Dave

86 87

HCP Design and Project Management Pvt LtdParitosh, Usmanpura,Ahmedabad 380 013, Gujarat, IndiaTel: +91 79 27550875, 27552563, 27552442Email: hcpahd@hcp.co.inWeb: www.hcp.co.in

T D W Furniture Pvt LtdNear Iscon Plaza, Satellite Road,Ahmedabad 380 015, Gujarat, IndiaTel: +91 79 65469992 Email: info@3-dworkshop.comWeb: www.3-dworkshop.com

Copyright (c) 2009 HCPDPM. All Rights Reserved.

ConceptBimal PatelIsmet Khambatta

Coordination and ProductionPreeti Goel Sanghi

DesignPreeti Goel Sanghi, Rina Dave

Design AssistanceShiuli

Photo CreditGajanan Upadhyaya, HCPDPM Archive, Reagan George, Rina Dave,Sachin Desai, TDW Archive

Printing Aalap Patel, Combination, Ahmedabad