exaggerated considering that in the case of a mural the effect is multi-sided. A wall, unlike a canvas, is not an independent object—there are so many other things besides its basic dimensions and texture, the spatial character of its surrounding, the perspective as it will be viewed from several points to the given space, and lastly, the very character of the architecture that the mural is supposed to inter-relate with. All this points to the necessity for a muralist to grasp the essentials of architecture, painting and sculpture. A mural is a combination of three idioms—not a mere entanglement of painting with sculpture. This might also explain my gradual evolution from painting to sculpture and then to architecture. Being an artist, the point regarding the necessity of formal training to attain capability to express in any related medium, has never crossed my mind—in fact I am rather averse to such systems. More often than not they result in a certain alienation with the psychic state of form and expression. Take for instance the architecture created by traditional communities and folk art—they express a total interaction between mind, culture and creation. RK: How far do you think murals affect the character of architecture ? You have been asserting that the introduction of murals and sculpture in buildings could help achieve a synthesis of art and architecture. This according to you, could help architecture attain a spiritual quality and also help painting and sculpture release themselves from the confines of a drawing room culture which has resulted in their alienation from the masses. Could you sum up the results, now that a considerable amount of work has been done in this direction since you first tried to promote the idea ? 38 April-June, 1984