Louis Kahn has had a profound influence on modern architecture. Masters of different generations note the most different impact of Kahn on their own work: Frank Gehry, Moshe Safdie, Mario Botta, Renzo Piano, Denise Scott Brown, Alejandro Aravena, Peter Zumthor, Robert Venturi, Tadao Ando, So Fujimoto, Stephen Hall and many others - each of them found something of their own in Kahn's work. Kahn's work has become a symbol of the critical movement of contemporary architectural thought. He was called a philosopher among architects - and not without reason, although he was also a technical innovator. The uniqueness of the figure of this architect lies in the synthesis of the conceptual positions of rationalism of the 19th century, the academicism of the Ecole de Beauzar, local building traditions and modernist architecture.
"The international style was the awakening of Kahn, the liberation from the conservatism of academic attitudes, which dominated his studies at the University of Pennsylvania and his early career" [1, p. 23]. His mature works reached the limit of monumentality prescribed by the classics, but were also ascetic, functional and devoid of any kind of decoration, which brings him closer to the criteria of modernist architecture. These features are evident in his great works: the Salk Institute, the Bangladesh National Assembly Complex and the Indian Institute of Management in Ahmedabad.
Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad, better known as IIM Ahmedabad or simply IIMA, was one of several projects that Kahn did outside of the United States, and perhaps one of the most famous, along with the National Assembly Building in Dhaka. The institute was built a short distance from the city center of Ahmedabad, one of the largest in India (approximately 6.3 million people). Ahmedabad has been known throughout its history as an industrial center. Between 1960 and 1970, the city was the capital of the state of Gujarat, which contributed to the development of education and trade there, and then Ahmedabad acquired a reputation as the center of higher education in India. In view of educational, scientific, and technological growth, the idea of building an Indian Institute of Management (IIM) campus in Ahmedabad is emerging. The construction of the university assumed the promotion of certain professions focused on management in industry, the university assumed a new school philosophy, a Western style of teaching.
In 1961, the Indian government and the Gujarat state, in collaboration with the Harvard Business School, organized a commission to design a new university. The project was entrusted to the local architect Balkrishna Doshi Vithaldas, who oversaw it throughout construction until completion in 1974. Doshi proposed the design of the campus to Luis Kahn, whom he was fascinated with. The emergence of an American architect in Ahmedabad in the 1960s speaks of a turning point in the architecture of independent India. Doshi believed that Kahn would be able to offer a new, modern Western model of higher education for India.
For Kahn, designing the Indian Institute of Management was more than just effective space planning: the architect wanted to create something more than a traditional institution. He revised the educational infrastructure and the entire traditional system: education was supposed to become collaborative, interdisciplinary, taking place not only in the classroom, but also outside them.
Kan understood the school as a collection of spaces where one can study. “Schools originate from a man under a tree, who, not knowing that he was a teacher, shared his knowledge with several listeners, who, in turn, did not know that they were students” [2, p. 527]. Soon a school emerged as a building, as a system, as architecture.The modern ramified education system originates from such a school, but its original structure was forgotten, the architecture of the school became utilitarian and therefore does not reflect the free spirit inherent in the “man under the tree”. Thus, Kahn, in his understanding of the school, does not go back to the utilitarian understanding of the function of the school, but to the spirit of education, the archetype of the school. "School as a concept, that is, the spirit of the school, the essence of the will to implement it - this is what the architect must reflect in his project." [2, p. 527]
School is not a function, but the idea of the School, its will to be realized. Kahn seeks to reduce the function to certain general types, eternally existing "institutions" of human society. The concept of "school" is an abstract characteristic of spaces suitable for learning there. For Kahn, the idea of a “school” is a form that has neither shape nor size. The architecture of a school should manifest itself in the ability to implement the idea of a “school” rather than in the design of a particular school. Thus, Louis Kahn distinguishes between form and design. For Kahn, the form of "School" is not "what" but "how". And if the project is measurable, then the form is the part of the work that cannot be measured. But the form can be realized only in the project - measurable, visible. Kahn is convinced that a building starts with a program, i.e. a form that, in the design process, passes through measurable means and becomes immeasurable again. The will to create drives the form to be what it wants to be. "An accurate understanding of what defines spaces suitable for a school would force educational institutions to require an architect to know what school wants to be, which is tantamount to understanding what the school form is." [2, p. 528]
The buildings of the Institute of Management are divided and grouped in accordance with the "form of the school", its programmatic use. “The types of structures implemented in IIM are not unique to universities, but they are oriented and arranged in a special way within the entire complex” [1, p. 37]. Kahn, referring to an extensive technical assignment, designs the main building, which includes administrative offices, a library, auditoriums, a kitchen, a dining room, an amphitheater. “The visual hierarchy is used to give meaning to the main academic building within the complex. The dormitory buildings oriented diagonally from the main building, as well as the housing of the university staff along the perimeter of the campus, are of lesser importance”[1, p. 35].
This functional differentiation and sequential organization of zones creates a gradual transition from public to private space. To create a comfortable living environment for students, it was necessary to separate student housing from classrooms with green spaces. It is through them that the student must make a ceremonial journey on the way to the main building, marking the border between the environment for life and work.
An important element of the campus is the plaza, surrounded on three sides by a wing of administrative offices, a library and auditoriums. She hosts large gatherings and celebrations and is effectively the "face" of the university. Kahn's initial idea was to create an area inside the main building, closed on all sides, but “… the project was only partially implemented, with some changes. The kitchen and dining room, for example, were moved, so that the area inside the main building became open”[3, p. 94]
The structure of the university campus reflects Kahn's own understanding of the learning process. Traditional education in the "classical", according to Michel Foucault, the era is a conservative, repressive institution of power, along with barracks, prisons, hospitals, which is reflected in the corresponding architecture. Freedom of the educational process is fundamental for Kahn. The architect does not want to create classrooms of the same type, corridors and other so-called functional areas, compactly organized by an architect who strictly adheres to the instructions of the school authorities. [3, p. 527].
By "freedom of the educational process" Kan means "escaping" from the yoke of total control, creating conditions for close relations between teacher and student, the absence of a rigid schedule and discipline. For this, Kan needs open and undifferentiated functional areas. So, in the main building, the student finds himself in wide corridors, which, according to Kahn, should become classrooms belonging to the students themselves. The auditoriums themselves are organized like amphitheaters, where students sit around the teacher. In the corridors there are windows overlooking the square and gardens. These are places for informal meetings and contacts, places that provide an opportunity for self-education. Outside classrooms for Kahn were as important to his education as the classroom. However, Kahn does not fall into the ultimate reductionism of empty, undivided space.
A characteristic feature of his plans is precisely the separation of service rooms and service areas. It is he who develops the concept of a cylinder as a service and a rectangle as a service element [4, p. 357]. Kahn invents a room-structure, places service elements in hollow walls, in hollow pillars. “The structure should be such that the space enters into it, is visible and tangible in it. Today we are creating hollow, not massive walls, hollow pillars. " [5, p. 523]. Supports, columns - structural elements become for Kahn premises, full-fledged components of space.
The IIM space is structured with service elements. Stairs, corridors, bathrooms of residential and educational buildings are placed in "column-cylinders" and "hollow walls". The campus structure is “willing” to express how the building is built and how it functions. It is implemented in a pure form, where masking of service items is not possible.
Kahn creates a layering of indoor and outdoor spaces through the use of wide round and arched holes in the walls. An array of walls is cut through by windows, exposing wide hallways, opening the protected area of the interior to the exterior, allowing natural light to penetrate inside. For Kahn, light was a way of creating space, an indispensable condition for the perception of architecture. Rooms differ not only in the quality of their physical boundaries and functional content, but also in how differently light enters them. Architecture arises from the wall structure, openings for light must be organized, like an element of the wall, and the way of this organization is rhythm, but the rhythm is not physical, but cut-off. Architectural can only be called a space that has its own light and its own design, it is organized by their "desire".
When designing IIM, Kahn focuses not on sun protection, but rather on shadow quality. To do this, he creates deep corridors and raises the openings of arched windows high. Thus, the viewer's attention is drawn not to the light source, but to its effect and the shadow it produces. With the help of the shadow, Kahn manages to create an ascetic, sacred, dramatic space.
Working here with light, Kahn works with the massiveness of the wall, with its materiality. The material indicates how it should be complex, the architect uses it not as a texture or color, but as a structure. “Brick wants to be an arch,” says Kahn. The architect masterfully applies this traditional material in the construction of IIM. Its ubiquitous use is a bit overwhelming, but gives monumentality and unity to all elements of the campus. The use of bricks is quite natural and refers to the local building tradition. The materiality and monumentality of IIM was a reaction to the dematerialization of the lifeless glass buildings of large cities.
Kahn was looking for his way in modernist architecture, looking for the eternal structural laws of architecture, not subject to fashion and style. He was endlessly fascinated by traditional knowledge, ideas about the world and architecture, admired the ruins, ancient buildings, devoid of decoration and decoration: only they, in his opinion, show their true structure. On the IIM campus, an architect interprets archetypes in terms of modern building technology. Kahn not only repeats the geometry of ancient buildings, he comprehends their structure, construction, function, typology, which allows to give the campus the monumentality inherent in ruins.
The IIM campus design derives directly from the sacred geometry of India, thereby bridging the gap between history and modernity. Kahn was able to create a complex system of buildings based primarily on forms and materials found within ancient Indian thought and tradition. “The sacred geometry of Kana uses a circle and a square, figures that are derived from the sacred Indian mandala. Mandala was the traditional way of planning Indian cities, temples and houses, providing the structure and order of life for Indians for many millennia”[1, p. 40]. This geometric organization of a circle inscribed in a square and diagonals passing through the corners of a square of 45 degrees arises in Kahn in the arrangement of courtyards, roads, the placement of buildings, in the floor plan and in the structure of facades.
“The orthogonal expressiveness of the IIM campus also follows strict rules, never deviating from the angles of 90 and 45 degrees” [1, p. 41]. The paths from the residential buildings are all directed towards the main building at an angle of 45 degrees, repeating the geometry of the mandala, and these buildings themselves are in the form of modified cubes. “The square is a non-choice”: Luis Kahn says that the square is a unique figure that can structure reality and solve many design problems. [6, p. 98]
Thus, Louis Kahn's interest extended not only to form and construction, but also to the semantics of image and place. For Kahn, it is important to use regional building methods, traditional materials, and an understanding of environmental conditions. Luis Kahn felt and "assimilated" places, therefore, first of all, his architecture is not about architecture, but about place and human experience.
During his lifetime, Kan was able to see most of the campus he designed embodied, but another architect, Doshi, completed the construction. Louis Kahn died on March 17, 1974 at the Pennsylvania Railroad in New York, on his way home to Philadelphia after a trip to Ahmedabad. The Indian Institute of Management has become a symbol of the formation of modern India, inextricably linked with its traditions of rigor and monumentality.
 Carter J., Hall E. Indian Institute of Management. Louis Kahn // Contemporary Responses of Indian Architecture. Utah: University of Utah, 2011.
 Kan L. Form and project // Masters of architecture on architecture / Ed. A. V. Ikonnikova. Moscow: 1971.
 Peter Gast K. Louis I. Kahn. Basel: Birkhauser, 1999.
 Frampton K. Modern architecture: A critical look at the history of development / Per. from English E. A. Dubchenko; Ed. V.L. Khaite. M.: Stroyizdat, 1990.
 Kan L. My work // Masters of architecture about architecture / Under the general. ed. A. V. Ikonnikova. Moscow: 1971.
 Ronner H., Jhaveri S., Vasella A. Louis I. Kahn. Complete Work, 1935-1974. Bâle: Birkhäuser, 1977.