What does it mean to function?
When discussing Eisenman and his work there is often debate about if its "good" architecture if it doesn't "function" but when people argue that his work and style is not function they are thinking about function as only one dimension. Can't the building be functional in a way that is not typical? To 'function' literally means that something works or operates in a proper or particular way. Let's look at Eisenman's House 3. Can it functional in its ability to me the user feel a certain, to experience space in a certain way. Can it be considered functional if it makes the user question the type ways they interact and think about the built environment?
Does architecture that is functional considered good architecture? Can we argue that a building that is simply made to function minimally but properly be considered good architecture? Let's think about the everyday architecture we see, not just the iconic pieces. Is Douthit "good" architecture because it may function well in the typical sense, in its ability to maximize the number of beds in a cost effective way? If not, what does it need to be considered good architecture?
I think every architecture has its advantages and disadvantages. There is no pure good or wrong architecture. Depends on who use it, and how to use it. The good means so many things. We need time to see if this good is really good.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree. Deeming something 'good' or 'bad' architecture is in itself a flawed approach because the point of view of the beholder is inherently subjective and may not be consistent across a population. I agree that we should consider Douthit Hills and House 3 in different ways; but I think it is important to remember that what people consider and what people consider good vs. bad.
ReplyDelete