Up Next on Judge Judy: The Architectural Community v. Peter Eisenman, 2018

Bailiff: All rise for the honorable architectural critics

Judge(s): You may be seated

Bailiff: On trial today is Peter Eisenman. He is being tried for independence, free thinking, and, most notably, an autonomous viewpoint on architecture.

The above is designed to represent the barrage of critique directed towards Peter Eisenman both from our class discussions and also the architecture community as a whole. To me, this critique is justified if Eisenman’s work is viewed through a typical architecture lens. Yes, I think his work is largely aesthetically poor. Yes, he rarely considers site and context. Yes, I find his usage of non-functional elements like stairs to nowhere and non-structural columns to be puzzling. And Yes, his grid system approach seems like a post-rationalized means to create unique forms. However, the above list consists of a predominately traditional, formalist approach to creating, building, and evaluating architecture. This was not Eisenman’s goal. To me, Eisenman’s work is successful because it accomplishes his goal. His aim was to challenge the modernist, functionalist viewpoint. He endeavored to create an architectural process devoid of outside interference and interactions. He wanted to be different. As Lauren G. discussed in her blog post, does architecture have to function to be considered ‘good’ architecture? Can good architecture  be devoid of function if it accomplishes the architect’s goals? I think it is important to considered Eisenman’s work from a non-traditional, objective viewpoint. Just because we don’t like the architecture, doesn’t mean its not good architecture. Don’t @ me.