Just Because You Have the Money to Do It, Doesn’t Mean You Should.
The spaces that designers create greatly impact the way people live and work. They have the ability to enrich the environment, improve our moods, make our lives easier, and provide communities with opportunities. However, if poorly executed, they can have the reverse effect. They can be detrimental to a person’s health and a city’s way of life. Creating architecture merely on the concept that it should be detached from functionalism to preserve the architectural language, as Peter Eisenman suggests, indicates the idea that environmental enrichment and user experience no longer matter. Eisenman’s concept that “function” follows “form,” or maybe that “function” no longer exists at all, eliminates all care for the user. At this point, Eisenman is just building because he can; it’s certainly not to improve the communities he’s designing for.
Just as you can’t have a well-rounded project that is all design
and no structure, you also can’t have a useful building that is pure geometry
and no function. I think the notion of using geometry to design is critical in
architecture especially when trying to understand the design process, but it’s merely
diagrammatic. It isn’t useful past the theoretical stage. At least Daniel
Libeskind tries to find reality in his geometrical lines. His buildings may be costly
and outrageous in design, but I feel that he is closer to finding practicality
in his geometries than Eisenman because he doesn’t completely exclude
functionality from his projects.
I agree with your interpretation of design. Design should be impactful and considerate of the context, users, and experience. Not one way to design is correct or the end all be all which allows theory to constantly evolve and guide the built environment but we must not loose sight of the effects design has.
ReplyDeleteYou make an excellent point that architecture should be focusing on the impact of everyday lives. I believe that Peter Eisenman wanted to express architecture for what is being seen as a sign of language, not just an object of itself. His work aims to express curiously and push the limits of what an average person understands about building. For example, a column will always be a column, but once it changes forms, it becomes a new language. Eisenman work may not be the most aesthetically pleasing, but the idea and concept of looking at architecture as a new form was a start for creating more manful work. His work has inspired many architectural works we see today, and the Lee III columns are a great example.
ReplyDeleteI think that the way Peter Eisenman pushed the boundaries of the language of architecture is important in how we develop our ideas of design, but for him to bring these concepts and designs to life, we have to ask the question of where do we cross the line once we realize that its not focusing or will have much affect on the impact of everyday life? Should there be a time within the design phase where there is a decision whether the structure should be temporary or permanent?
ReplyDeleteI'd like to add to your “It isn’t useful past the theoretical stage”. We talked about theory as the basis of architecture. These theories can be talked about and discussed for a long time. How does it get built? Who is supposed to know how it's built? I think it is fair to say that theory can form the basis of a design. But it’s geometry and knowing how to make that work will only make architecture into reality instead of just some words in the air.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the best architecture often comes from the carful balance between the concepts of form and function. Great thoughts Gauge!
ReplyDelete