Projective Architecture_Blogg Entry 2

Architecture should never be just a well interpreted diagram. Architecture needs to be developed in a ways that promotes the area in which it belongs. Peter Eisman works with formal abstraction, off of a grid. Using the grid as a starting point can create freedom from the historic forms of the time but the result does not respond to the human, it becomes inhumane. This type of architecture creates new experiences but it also becomes a glorified form of art by only connecting to the people on a theoretical "experiential" level. But this type of architecture was necessary at the time to push the boundaries of what a building could be. 

Daniel Liebeskin aslo does this but not with a grid but instead with over arching lines that are drawn with some intent but some instances at random or whatever seems to be aesthetically pleasing to him at the time.

Looking now at Projective architecture Rem Koolhaas has a great example of it in the Seattle Public Library. The diagram becomes simplified responding to the needs of the user and are not just creating new spaces and experiences but also creating a new way of

 organizing a public program. 

BIG is one of the most "effective" projective architects of the time. He takes an over simplified diagram, one that anyone can understand. and then it becomes a building with little to no transformation from the diagram. The diagram is the building and because the diagram is responding to its surroundings that means the building is as well right? Not necessarily, His buildings become good selling points because they can be understood so easily. This type of building really reinforces the idea of defending a building from critiques, it gives the building a clear purpose and form. But I believe that the details get too muddled or deluded. Yes the buildings technology and details are still outstanding but I think that the emphasis on making this diagram a reality is too strong and more emphasis could be put into the human touch that some of these buildings are missing.

Peter Eisman V.S. Zumthor

Eisman Stated "I'm not interested in Peter Zumthors work or people who spend their tine worrying about the details or the grain of the wood on one side or the color of the material surface, ect. I could care less"

Zumthor Stated "When I look at Eismans monument it makes me so angry. It's still a block with a general, obstacles which could cause other aggressions"

These two opposite positions of architecture are necessary . Architecture needs competing theoretical experiments to improve upon itself and to debate and critique the work that is produced. Now even though Eisman's memorial creates a profound experience it is not sensitive to its surroundings what so ever and it becomes an immersive art piece where as Zumthors work becomes almost that an object that seems like it belongs to the place in which it is in, focusing on the human scale and detail in the work.