Opposite End of the Spectrum and Beyond

Where modern architecture prescribed specific instructions for forms based on their functions, the merging of critical and autonomous architecture seemed to go in the complete opposite direction. Architecture could no longer help influence or solve complex societal issues, so it should resist by creating its own world and language. Context, program, and culture have no impact whatsoever on the decisions of the form. This notion seemed inherently wrong and frustrating when presented with examples in class.

However, after seeing how architects have evolved from this realm, I can appreciate it a bit more. Koolhaas' approach to programming that integrates function back into the planning of the project signifies that we as architects could think about the endless possibilities of program coming together in a cohesive element. The architecture functions autonomously from context, but relates to program. It paved the way for freedom of form.

Fast forwarding to the discussion of projective architecture, we are encouraged to think about information systems, cultures, economic structures, and so on. Instead of autonomy, we delve into the effects that context, material, information systems, technology, and program have on a project. The architecture is reaching into many different realms and becomes a fluid object. Maybe we needed the period of time where forms were just gestures in order to break away from rigid rules--now we just need to use that responsibly. 

Eisenman's Diagram for House III

Koolhaas' Programmatic Diagram