Don't/Do be a Sell Out!
Peter Eisenman's House VI with a hole in the bedroom floor.
Without theory, architects would lose sight of what they are doing and why they do it. Being able to think theoretically allows one to see the assumptions and biases behind design decisions. Theories are just guesses at what defines good architecture based on past events and are not meant just for philosophers. Whether we know it or not, we use theories all the time, whether designing a facade or programming a building. There is undoubtedly a theory out there that we could attach to our choices to explain the reasoning behind them. Despite the usefulness of theories, the article's argument against "hot" architecture makes a lot of sense. How could an architect always use the same rigid theory in every situation? We discussed in class how Peter Eisenman was a textbook example of an architect who was dead set on his theories. Eisenman's architecture seems to lack common sense to anyone unfamiliar with his theories. For instance, in his design of House VI he designed a hole in the bedroom that looked down to the first floor. The couple who lived there slept in twin beds until they finally gave in and got a big enough bed to span the gap. Even the couple (who were fans of Eisenman) eventually gave into practicality. In all art forms, there is some of it that only people who really "understand" the art like, and then there is a form that the average person can appreciate. When artists or architects balance this dilemma and bridge the gap between giving people what they want while also holding true to their artistic integrity (theories), they can really be successful.
Zoe, nice blog post! I totally agree that theory has a time and place; along with a balance. Theories are like art; not everyone gets it, and the best art is only understood by so many people. Yet, this does not mean one should become fixated (similarly to Eiseman) on one specific theory. This is like creating art in which no one understands, over complicated and lacks elegance. To me, each project has a new and different theory one should be striving to create. In innovative & critical architecture, I believe we would agree that new projects that come along in an office setting for example would have 'new' theories one would be testing as they get more experienced. When an architect becomes fixated on any theory and takes it too far, they lack commodity and functionalism. The Vitruvian triad is meant to be a blend of firmness, commodity, and delight. Not strictly one, and I believe your example with Eiseman is unbalanced in regards to this triad.
ReplyDeleteThe example of the twin beds with the gap in the floor is not practical, but I think more importantly is an example of architecture neglecting the impact of design negatively impacting the user. Can you imagine this gap in the floor creating a sense of uneasiness and tension in your bedroom and that bleeding into your feelings towards your spouse?
ReplyDelete