Architecture as a Language
Designing a building for the sake of the form and what the architect is trying to achieve visually; is to me the worst way to design a building. I myself try to design around and with the user in mind. It seems crazy that someone wouldn’t design according to the main user of whatever they are creating. Architects like Peter Eisenman seem to selfishly not even care about the people that use his buildings as long as they get their point across. At least the modernists (the people Eisenman criticized the most) intended their designs to be somewhat democratic even though in the end it didn’t work out like they planned.
Now I am not trying to be all negative, I realize that all
types of architecture are connected and every type draws some sort of
inspiration from another type of architecture that is completely different
stylistically. I am sure that even some
of the things that I do when I am designing come from some of the things that
Peter Eisenman did with his buildings such as the Wexler Center for the Arts. This being said, it takes all kinds of
architecture, relevant in my opinion or not, to design buildings these days. This to me is kind of interesting because it’s
interesting to think that architecture that I don’t like at all; I still can
see subtle ways that it influenced the things that I do in studio.
I think you are spot on. While Eisenman did create the iterative process and was very successful at it, creating architecture for architecture is a very slippery slope to go down. I think in school it is necessary to touch on these subjects so we can "develop our design sense" and learn the practicality of architecture later. But at the same time the slippery road of thought just for thinking becomes problematic, and I think an aspect that gives architecture a bad image to the general public.
ReplyDeleteCouldn't agree with Shane's comment more.
DeleteI like that Aaron went on to explain the influence all architecture has on design both in general and your own process. Regardless of personal bias.
I agree with you Aaron in that architects should design for the user foremost. Lee did bring up a big point in class in that the building is perceived by the public mostly from the exterior. So form of the building does carry a symbolic weight. So as architects we do need to design the form but it should not be the driving force of design.
ReplyDeleteI think this is such an interesting point you bring up: that we often make reference to past architecture in our own designs that we may be completely indifferent to but that, in some way relates to or enhances our own work. There is definitely something to be said in learning from past successes and failures here. Though I am in agreement with you on your opinion of Eisenman's work, I also believe that there is much we can learn from it and work to design buildings that fulfil both the architect's aesthetic visions in regards to form, as well as the social and cultural need for functionality.
ReplyDelete