Language and Exegesis of Design
Architecture exists as an art form that is critically examined through words. Constructed forms are experienced through phenomenological experiences as well as through reproductions captured in mediums like photography. These experiences of the architecture are given meaning when they are paired with precise vocabulary. The language of the written word is paired with the language of the architecture referring to specific canons and ideas about what makes a specific work of architecture good or bad, functional or dysfunctional, pragmatic or impractical, etc. All of these conceptions about what architecture is contrasted with its potential are flavored by very specific lenses captured in the language we use to understand and discuss architecture, and yet no central doctrine or dogma exists producing disciples.
Peter
Eisenmann’s understanding and critique of architectural language exposes the error
of western fundamentalism by presuming that our canons are inerrant
cross-culturally. Eisenmann’s skepticism of functionalism’s applicability
universally points towards cultural influence over our canonical understandings.
If the western canons of design are our scripture and our design schools are
teaching doctrine in a vacuum, perhaps we have become too rigid and
fundamentalist in our hermeneutical understandings of design processes. We are
churning out disciples with rigid dogmas to the detriment of disciples in other
contexts.
I recently read an interview with Peter Eisenman (mentioned in my blog post), in which he talks about his new beliefs about an architectural language, since his opinion has changed within the last few years (the interview was in 2016). He mentions that he "wants to stop any narrative" in his own projects and focus on "stopping any communication and placing within architecture itself a device that causes you to react emotionally, physically, and intellectually." Like you, I agree that language is at the heart of architecture and without it, how would we describe the experiential qualities of a space?
ReplyDeleteIn the same interview, Eisenman talks about how architecture has "lost its authority". He says, "Look, when I first started teaching, we taught Frank Lloyd Wright, Le Corbusier, Stirling, Rossi, Venturi, etc; we had all their books on the desks. Now there is nothing. Students don’t have these books on their desks. They don’t have authoritative models" and then comments that architects today (i.e., Bjarke Ingels) have no authority. Perhaps this is similar to the rigidity and fundamentalist teachings that you mentioned.
First off, this was awesome. I agree that we are putting the teachings of architecture into a western box. It's difficult for me to think about many architects that weren't either from America or Europe, and the one's that I do know are extremely well known by their country. It forces us to think a certain way about how we construct our buildings and lay out our programs when in all possibility other cultures are much stronger at doing those things. Rather than understanding and pulling from those ideas, there is an unintentional passing over of what could be a breakthrough for many architects and architecture students.
ReplyDelete