Eisenman and Libeskind Should Have Stuck to Abstract Art
In L'Architecture dans le Boudoir, Tafuri wrote that society and the public has a large impact on design, regardless of whether the architect wants to push the boundaries of their design. Cultural and societal views should be taken into high regard during the design. Buildings are not created in a vacuum.
Architecture and society have a clear correlation.
Architecture has always been a powerful factor of culture and history. When societies
develop, I tend to see shifts in architecture that reveal these moments in a
time of great struggle or advancement. I believe that architecture tends to
follow social changes, or comments on them.
Architects are established in the context of our experiences
and our background. Some may be more conscious of a variety of topics that impact
architecture including global changes, social issues, political conflict, and religious
symbolism; but they still design with a bias of their own perspective.
This idea agrees with the writings of Robert Somol and Sarah
Whiting’s: "Architecture is not an isolated or autonomous medium, it is
actively engaged by the social, intellectual, and visual culture which is
outside the discipline, and which encompasses it... it is based on a premise
that architecture is inevitably involved with questions more difficult than
those of form or style."
I think this idea of the considerate architect is what
bothers me about architects like Peter Eisenman and Daniel Libeskind as they only
consider formal and geometrical rules that they create when designing their buildings,
and the end results don’t even come out beautiful to the occupants or the
pedestrian. Could it be an appropriate experimental movement for art? Sure, but
when it effects our environment and how we live, it becomes problematic.
I think it's an interesting point you make about the experimentation in architecture when it doesn't take society or culture into consideration. We've seen influential architects time and time again experimenting with geometry, form, etc., taking only their goals and ideas into consideration and not the society or culture with which their work will effect on a daily basis. Can this can be detrimental to societal views of architecture or styles? Is this ultimately beneficial to the advancement of architecture and construction? methods
ReplyDeleteThis is a fair point Eisenman and Daniel Libeskind both do an excellent job with theoretical, formal, and mathematical exploration. To their credit buildings like this had never been built before and we would never know they were ultimately failures until the theoretical conception was realized in the physical world. It is important to recognize the valiant effort made by these architects to push the discipline forward. However, we now know this is not the best way to design and create architecture.
ReplyDeleteYou mention about meaningful architecture interacts and responds to society. When thinking of popular firms, many are diagrammatic and are more focused on the wow factor than the lasting factor. I do not believe post critical architecture is a response to society, but more so a response to challenging existing theory. How do we as future architects respond to this? In practice, we want to design something that will turn eyes to get more clients. In school, we learn that need to be designing in response to respecting the site and its culture. Is there a can we develop our skills and designs to meet both needs?
ReplyDeleteAs Nathan called it out, I too think its interesting about the point of experimentation in architecture. Though, when thinking about experimentation in architecture, especially when coming from a heavy theoretical base, there are not many opportunities for architects to where they can bring the theory to reality and be displayed temporarily. The only temporary design that would get the attention would be the serpentine pavilion designs in London. But say that Eisenman and Libeskind stuck to abstract art and never built any true architecture, I think that their ideologies would not have extended so far into our academia.
ReplyDeleteI think it's important for architects to consider the impact of their designs on society and culture. Architecture reflects the changes and struggles of our time and architects must be conscious of the issues affecting the community they design for. Architects who focus solely on form and geometry, like Eisenman and Libeskind, can create buildings that are unappealing and impractical for occupants and pedestrians. It's crucial for architects to think beyond style and form and consider the social and cultural implications of their work.
ReplyDeleteErin, I agree with you on the concept of abstract art and its relation to certain architects. The beauty of abstract art is that it remains open to the viewer's interpretation. This means that it can be seen and comprehended in infinite ways providing a sense of freedom for a viewer's mind. While I find abstract art to be compelling, I'm not sure if it should find its way into the field of architecture as a typology of building form. Like you said, "buildings are not created in a vacuum" and must, most importantly, be a product within the surrounding context.
ReplyDelete