It's Not Up to Us

 As architects, we (typically) provide a social service, meaning that there is a level of human activity involved. That is not to say, that either of the discussed topics of form follows function or simply an exploration of form in and of itself rejects that human activity; one can even argue that these unique forms created by Eisenman could, although indirectly, amplify the experience of the human experience.

What I mean to say is, I am a firm believer that the client/occupant/subject should always be at the core of the design process, however, I am also a firm believer that the human experience can only be manipulated and not prescribed. Each occupant enters the architecture with a fresh mind of experiences and perceptions. For instance, although it may be considered "pure", my first thought when seeing Peter Eisenman's Wexner Museum is one of playfulness; I'd like to use the white louvres as monkey bars. Denise Scott Brown once said that architects design the spaces where the occupants are encouraged to interact, however, the interaction is in itself a choice that both occupants need to agree on. In that, we have the realization that we are not gods and cannot impose on the occupants free-will, we can only optimize the spaces created; whether that is through the exploration of form, or as a reaction to function. 

I can argue both sides of the coin, both Tafuri's methods of a social architecture and the need for but loss of a utopian architecture, as well as Eisenman's capitalistic pursuit of studying form and the body. What cannot be argued is that the end result is frankly not up to them; the end result being the experience one may have in their designs or opinions they have on their critiques. The ultimate success of their work lies in the perception of those who care to explore their creations, regardless of what thoughts or values fueled the creation itself.