Form VS Theory
A few years ago, I liked the visual impact brought by architectural forms and architectural languages, such as Peter Eisenman's. When I knew the theoretical research behind the form, I felt that this architect was amazing. But the truth is that there should be only one Peter Eisenman in his era. His theory has significance to the times and the development of architecture. However, the artistry of this significance is more significant than practice. I could only read what he was calling for from his designs, but I couldn't see what he was solving. His theory has a necessity, but it is not a definitive guide to our current design.
The form is an essential part of architectural design, but its theory is not just a slogan but can solve some problems. Isn't the duty of architects to solve various issues such as living, entertainment, social services, etc., for a variety of user groups?
Hey Xin, while I can stand by the idea that it is the duty of the architect to solve societal issues. But I will disagree with the need for just one Peter Eisenman per generation. Architects are the sculptors of the built world. We have the ability to push the limits of what materials can and can't do. We can also create spaces that bend the mind and cause awe. If it is physical, we should design it and build it!
ReplyDeleteJohn, thank you for your reply! I agree the point that we have the ability to push the limits of what materials can and can't do and can create some special space as well. More architects are welcomed, but I still feel that one Peter Eisenman is enough.
DeleteXin, I agree that architects such as Peter Eisenman should be a singular instance. These types of architects should be taught in the higher education of architecture but should not be the only design values students are being taught.
ReplyDeleteThank you Sarah! Yes, you're right, I total agree with your statement that they should not be the only design values students are being taught.
DeleteXin,
ReplyDeleteWell said. We shouldn't be outright dismissive of Eisenman's work because we find it conflicting with reality, but we should also not see him, as some of us do, as a architectural prophet. Eisenman is just one voice, influenced by the moment he wrote his work, existing within the Western architectural discourse that has lasted for 2,500 years. However, Eisenman may see himself as less of a prophet, and we are just labeling him so because of the radical thoughts he writes.
Thank you for your reply Geoffrey! Your statement that Eisenman may see himeself as less of a prophet is interesting. We respect the diversity of voices, but that does not mean we should follow all their steps.
Delete