An Architecture of No Meaning Is a Convenient Architecture
“[Modernism] fundamentally changed the relationship between man and object away from an object whose primary purpose was to speak about man to one which was concerned with its own objecthood,” states Peter Eisenman in his 1976 polemical essay titled “Post-Functionalism” in Oppositions 6. This declaration by Eisenman, inspired by the writings of Manfredo Tafuri, sets the stage for what I believe to be “convenient” architecture of no meaning.
Additionally, Eisenman’s view that “objects are seen as ideas independent of man” ignores the fact that objects are indeed not independent of man due to the act of construction. There is a meaning that every tradesmen formulates with the architecture of Eisenman upon its piecing together off the paper. Unless, of course, architecture of no meaning can only exist on paper, which in this case the object is placed in a position of privilege. So too is its author, who is influential upon the object, contrary to Eisenman’s belief. No language originates without a context to inform it.
While Eisenman is certainly sharp and bold in his theoretical challenging of established architectural norms, albeit weakened norms after the collapse of the modern project, the generation of his “pure” architecture has little resistance in its creative process. Ignoring contextual truths of socio-economic and environmental forces makes the planning of an architecture far easier. Convenience is idealistic, and brews negligence which damages humanity’s metaphysical relationship with the world.
Additionally, Eisenman’s view that “objects are seen as ideas independent of man” ignores the fact that objects are indeed not independent of man due to the act of construction. There is a meaning that every tradesmen formulates with the architecture of Eisenman upon its piecing together off the paper. Unless, of course, architecture of no meaning can only exist on paper, which in this case the object is placed in a position of privilege. So too is its author, who is influential upon the object, contrary to Eisenman’s belief. No language originates without a context to inform it.
Some astute observations made here for sure. I couldn't agree more in that Eisenman's view appears to be trapped in an idealistic vacuum world where the human element doesn't play a contributing role in the realization (in the truest sense of the word) of the architecture. Considering unbuilt architecture is still regarded as architecture, the idea of the "convenient" must remain "on paper", as you said, and retain its position of privilege. This in turn would allow it to refrain from brewing negligence and consequently damaging "humanity's metaphysical relationship with the world."
ReplyDelete