Eisenman vs. Ingels?
Eisenman, known for his theoretical approach to architecture, believes in pure forms, intrinsic geometry, and using mathematics as the universal language that it is. He is associated with the Deconstructivist movement, emphasizing fragmentation and disassembly of architectural forms. Eisenman likes symbols and signs and uses these, despite their true relevance to the context, to project his concepts.
Ingels, who isn't quite the Deconstructivist math-oriented architect that Eisenman is, has found success doing things a different way. He believes in what has come to be known as sustainable hedonism, and often focuses on incorporating elements of nature and the community.
There is no denying that both architects have had a significant impact on the field of architecture. Eisenman's work is heavily theoretical and conceptual, while on the other hand, Ingel's work is more pragmatic and designed on creating livable, functional spaces. Both architects have a history of being cited as "starchitects", whether or not they like it.
I began to write this post with the intention of creating a separation between the two architects, clarifying the disconnect between generations and designs, but despite the differences that I have pointed out, I found a commonality that I hadn't registered with at first. While their styles are both unique, they share a common love for symbolism. Ingles has the Shanghai Expo REN Building as a perfect example while Eisenman has countless displays of non-functional architectural elements that are only incorporated to promote theory. This use of symbolism has allowed these architects to continue to find jobs, clients, and homes for their projects. I do not disbound symbolism in architecture, but I do find it unconvincing when it loses touch with the surrounding context and history of a place, which these two architects tend to do.
*image was AI generated through the prompt of "a building designed by Peter Eisenman and Bjarke Ingels
I admire the epiphany you had while writing this post. There is a particular beauty to changing ones preconceived notions of a topic like you did when considering the differences between the two famous architects.
ReplyDeleteI believe you make a valid point when comparing/contrasting the work of Peter Eisenman and Bjake Ingles. There would be no Ingles if there wasn't for Eisenman. Eisenman used the beauty of theory while Bjake showed how Architecture is a marking tool. To say one is better then the other would be ignorant.
ReplyDeleteEric, I appreciate the post and the attempt at comparing Bjarke to Peter. I agree that both architects use symbolism, but maybe to different extents. Both at different levels of abstraction. My thought when reading your blog was: at what level of abstraction is it still symbolism? There is no doubt that your Bjarke example is derived from a symbol. But I'm unsure if I'd classify Eiseman as a 'symbol using character'. When I think of a symbol, I think of a direct meaning of something like a cross, symbolizing heaven. A very literal example. I say this because while Peter does 'symbolize' things within his abstractions, he does it in a manner that leaves more room for interpretation than Bjarke. Perhaps this is why many thing Bjarke is somewhat "corny"? Ingles seems to take a more literal stance on the ways he symbolizes things and seems to be "less abstract" than Peter if you will. With that being said, if there is so much room for interpretation within a massing/detail/concept... is he still purposely symbolizing something specific, or is he just giving users an experience for them to interpret? I'm not sure what you may refer to this as... Good stuff!
ReplyDelete