Object Oriented Architecture
"In Eisenman's discussion of the Dom-ino, it is the design process itself that is being registered rather than the material productive and technical systems or specific context discussed by Hays. In marketing the status of it's existence, in its ability to function as a self-referential sign, the Dom-ino is one of the first modernist and critical gestures in architecture: "Architecture is both substance and act. The sign is a record of an intervention - an event and an act which goes beyond the presence of elements which are merely necessary conditions."
When does "because I can" architecture cross the line to "no you should not" architecture? I take the above excerpt to mean that Eisemann sees the design process as the only necessity in design rather than Hays who regards program and social context as a required step in the design process. Eisenman is looking for an 'uncompromising search for newness' without consequences to the built environment because in his reality, design is all that matters and all that is; there does not need to be reasoning. But is Eisenmans' reality realistic? Architecture for its own sake almost becomes artifacts for its own sake. It loses its footing in reality and is simply architecture as an object. The object becomes the language and complexity becomes more important than clarity. “Architects design houses. I live in a home" is a quote from Eisenman, which I take to mean that even though some architects state to design for people, they still might not be accomplishing that. Eisenmans' architecture is there to make a statement and is more about its own identity than that of which any person can place on it.
When does "because I can" architecture cross the line to "no you should not" architecture? I take the above excerpt to mean that Eisemann sees the design process as the only necessity in design rather than Hays who regards program and social context as a required step in the design process. Eisenman is looking for an 'uncompromising search for newness' without consequences to the built environment because in his reality, design is all that matters and all that is; there does not need to be reasoning. But is Eisenmans' reality realistic? Architecture for its own sake almost becomes artifacts for its own sake. It loses its footing in reality and is simply architecture as an object. The object becomes the language and complexity becomes more important than clarity. “Architects design houses. I live in a home" is a quote from Eisenman, which I take to mean that even though some architects state to design for people, they still might not be accomplishing that. Eisenmans' architecture is there to make a statement and is more about its own identity than that of which any person can place on it.
Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe - Peter Eisenman
House III - Peter Eisenman
Architecture for its own sake truly does become an object. These spatial creations have their own appropriate places in society, as you have shown with Eisenman’s Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe. However, as seen in Eisenman’s House III, a world full of architectural spaces for their own sake would be very strange. Architecture for its own sake is vital in certain instances to evoke a strong feeling and make a moment for the user, but it is useless in the daily functions of the users’ life.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your idea that this type of thinking is creating far too many artifacts. I believe that we have a greater responsibility for our actions than "just because" we can. Yes we can like something just because, but we shouldn't build something "just because."
ReplyDeleteArchitecture as objects seems to serve a more monumental purpose than one of a functioning space. These spaces for their own sake really can create 'strange' spaces like you say Sarah, but do these spaces start to provoke something in the user or create a situation not before seen? I start to wonder if this thinking brings about a needed change in monolithic, boxy architecture.
ReplyDelete