Too "Hot" to Handle
Personally, I am a believer in the phrase “form follows
function”. If the building and purpose do not relate, then the human experience
is taken out of the equation. In the work of Daniel Libeskind and Peter
Eisenman, they believe that architecture is enough and can stand alone without
program. That certainly explains why there are crevices, corners, dead ends,
and shards of glass completely interrupting the space. Obtrusive architecture
with no sympathy for human experience is simply wasted space collecting dust
that no one can reach to wipe away. Chopping away at a building and filling the
remnants with whatever may or may not fit is not a successful way to plan a
space. While it makes a statement in the world of theory, it also says “We do
not care about the users, but isn’t this cool” underlined and in bold. Sculpture
and architecture can work together in a functional way, but it seems that this
pair chooses one over the other. This type of space is definitely too hot for me to handle...
Maybe these are just the signs of time. Both the "hot" architecture and our contemporary disapproval. I do not want to tell that they or we are incorrect/correct or we should stop discussing and thinking about it.
ReplyDeleteI'm curious if form and function can become equals? Can there be a lukewarm; pure form that allows for program to stand by its side? Maybe these obtrusive, in your face designs by Eisenman, etc. are somewhat of a stepping stone in architectural rhetoric.
ReplyDelete