Architecture should not define how people live
I
may not disagree with any of Peter Eisenman's Ideas and theories but his theory
of making functions change to make users realize how architecture changes their
perception. I wonder if this always hold true? Especially in a residence? He chose to
represent standard things like columns, walls, windows etc. in the most
unexpected manner than what was expected by anyone. Column to be free standing
without bearing any structural load was a new concept, a stairway not leading
anywhere was a thing unknown.
I believe every phase and style in
architecture has taught us something or the other, but I also believe maybe
choosing a residence to prove a point was not the best thing. I was once told
by a faculty in my under graduate studies that out of all the places we design
the only place which we cannot design without a client is a residence. All of
us in today’s world go and buy ready to move in houses but then no house looks
the same from inside when people start living in it. Architects and Architecture
can just do so much!
I agree with you that even we design exactly same houses, the people will change once they start living in them, because they will add their own personality and their own needs to the house.
ReplyDeleteIt's pretty important that we cannot design a residence without the client. The housing should be designed to serve people who live inside, but not be designed to change users' perception. I think what Peter Eisenman did is more like using the houses to express his own perception not really design for the users.
ReplyDelete