Can Architecture be critical?
This is a question that I have battled with throughout my academic career. Should architecture be able to stand on its own and be true to form as Peter Eisenman says or should it be critical and respond to the current issues we as a society are facing. Eisenman believed that architecture should speak its own language and separate itself from all other ties. He believed architecture should avoid being humanistic and focus on the aesthetics rather than the function.
Personally I do not agree with Eisenman’s post-functionalist approach. Removing the human element flies directly in the face of what the original purpose of architecture was, which was to give humans a place to rest and be safe from the elements. In my opinion I believe the form of a building should not be fully autonomous rather it should respond to the needs of its location. There is a wide range of needs architecture can address such as, environmental, economic, social, health, and the list goes on. To ignore these would be a disservice to society.
In addition I believe this approach is just not practical. Eisenman’s ideas would be great if there were no real world implications, like money or clients. Eisenman is a world-renowned architect; he has built up a reputation in architecture and receives a lot of clients with a lot of money. This allows him to pursue his ideas, but imagine if the average architect did the same and pitched to a client a building that is not what he/she asked for and twice the money. He/she would be let go immediately.
I do agree with your opinion. I also believe that a "form should respond to the needs of its location" along with it's contextual aspects and the needs of the users.
ReplyDeleteThis is our leverage to think like Eisenman. But I think in the practical world this theory doesn't work like that way unless you become a renowned individual.
Good question! I feel like it inevitably invites the question of where architecture begins and ends. Is non-humanist architecture just sculpture? I feel like the argument could be made that the fact that constructible architecture (not that i think that architecture needs to necessarily be constructible, but I digress) is often so dialogical is why it hasn't been reduced to a subgenre of sculpture and rendered obsolete as a profession by teams of engineers and construction managers working with designers at large.
ReplyDeleteI agree that Eisenman's approach is unorthodox and frankly very arrogant, but the funny thing is that the study of form and the human body lead to a very spiritual experience in the Memorial he is pictured in above. As an architect being commissioned for a project, he's probably tough to work with, but in this project in particular, his studies allowed him to create an experience that truly captures the haunting nature of the subject.
ReplyDeleteI agree that Eisenman's approach is unorthodox and frankly very arrogant, but the funny thing is that the study of form and the human body lead to a very spiritual experience in the Memorial he is pictured in above. As an architect being commissioned for a project, he's probably tough to work with, but in this project in particular, his studies allowed him to create an experience that truly captures the haunting nature of the subject. (forgot to put my name, whoops^)
ReplyDeleteI agree, I think the world that Eisenman lives in is a very specialized world for very high level architects that most will never reach. Its hard to take the theories that he submits and apply them to everyday buildings with real world clients with tight budgets.
ReplyDeleteYou bring up some great points. I completely agree that architecture should be something that enhances the everyday lives of the people that it impacts. That being said, I believe there is a common ground that can be found between autonomous architecture in the sense that Eisenman describes and architecture for the people and surroundings it serves. Finding that common ground when designing, however, is no easy feat.
ReplyDeleteI absolutely agree. Architecture if for humans, so when an architect tries to remove the human from his design, it becomes more of a sculpture. Perhaps a piece of artwork that opens a conversation on rejecting norms, but a "human-less" building type could never become a new norm.
ReplyDeleteCompletely agree. The way that he disassociates the architecture from the human element creates a large missed opportunity to speak to the users directly.
ReplyDelete