Form Follows Nothing
In undergrad, I had multiple
assignments that required us to analyze one of Eisenman’s houses and read some
of his literature. I never could understand what he was doing or what he was
saying back then. It still feels that way to some degree even today. There’s an
understanding of how he starts simple and makes certain geometric moves to
create a complex geometry. But creating a form just to make a form doesn’t seem
to make complete sense to me. At the time of his writing and early designs,
architecture had a strong connection to the functions and clients that it served.
As he designed his first “house” projects, and they actually started to get
built for residential use, they failed as structures to live in since he never
thought about program in his designed elements. I realize that he wanted to do
certain design moves because he just “felt like it” but with our profession,
while we get to represent our creativity in the form of a building, it still
has to have a client that sees your creativity as something that they also want
in their building.
I think you make a good point. Too many architects are looking for a "new language" by simply stripping ornament and adding complication. I don't think this is the recipe for good design. Designing to a point is the idea. Tailoring space to its programmatic needs rather than applying an architectural language to make it "look cool" or feel fresh. The idea that applying two regular grids to find an interesting pattern isn't going to do that. All that will do it make a space that seems interesting to look at but feels awkward and is most likely unusable. Architects need to stop trying to show off and start trying to create designs that are bespoke to their program.
ReplyDelete