A Clash of Titans
From the readings and lecture, I could not help but think of a debate that occurred in 1982 at Harvard between Christopher Alexander and Peter Eisenman. During the debate, Alexander and Eisenman talk about harmony in architecture and their philosophical views to design.
For Eisenman, his approach reflects his cerebral attitude of creating architecture for architecture’s sake. He is more concerned about the expression of the overall work, but this can alienate and disengage the humanity of the space.
Contrasting this, Alexander is more concerned about how the environment impacts the person going through the space. He wants his buildings to be comfortable, to be more about the “feeling” of the space and be a reflection of the context.
We can ask ourselves when we are designing in which camp do we fall into. Are we making a gesture that is about creating an expression/critique or do we consider the building rooted in a context and how it affects the user?
Do we have to pick a side? we also have to consider what each view is doing to the profession and the direction it could take us in, for better or worst. The responsibilities of the architect from the position of the master architect who controlled everything on the job site even as far as the landscaping to the furniture, etc.. to having the need of professions like landscape architecture, interior design, furniture design. What is so great about our profession is that it can be so flexible in that way. where even the facade of the building is becoming so intricate that specialization starts to emerge. In my opinion is because of this two "camps" that the profession is so well diverse. In order to meet the requirements of both paths the architect has a wider scope of possibilities for advancements in technology, material science and architectural theory.
ReplyDeleteTwo interesting stances, and while these may represent the extremes of a scale, there could be a middle ground. Could we design something that responds on both levels, something that is 'just' architecture, but does respond to society?
ReplyDeleteThere is no middle ground. We each have a tendency to one side or the other. You can't hold both those views at once without being insane.
ReplyDeleteI would question the sanity of any architect, regardless of which side they fall.
Delete