Can form really override function?
.jpg)
I will criticize a single idea from Eisenman’s article, Postfunctionalism. His idea that pure geometry and objective, form-based architecture should override its program and purpose, seems absurd. He claims that modernism shifted the “relationship between man and object” to one solely concerned with “its own objecthood,” and notes that the early “form-follows-function formula” has created a predicament of morals, which is, to him, “no longer operative within contemporary experience.”
I would simply argue that no architectural object, even in our generation, can exist without subjective purpose, because it is materialized by a human designer, who is inherently subjective in nature. Take this office building, for instance (designed by Eisenman). It may look objectively interesting on the outside, but on the inside it completely neglects accessibility standards, which are in place for the safety of people who use it every day. In this case, the function is ignored and creates a spatial nightmare that is no longer compelling but physically dangerous. Isn't this an arrogant stance for an architect, or any designer to take and act on?
I definitely agree with your critiques on this building. This could almost pass as fine as an office building, but as soon as someone with a disability works there, such as someone who is blind and uses a cane, there are major problems. After researching this building, I learned it actually got turned into a senior care center, which would have many more problems. I couldn't find any pictures after the transfer so I'm not sure how they went about fixing this.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with your critiques - on the entire theory. To me it gets to a point of the "everything is subjective" argument. Duchamp's fountain was ogled simply for its newness - there was no true beauty in it despite Duchamp's claims, not even its own "objecthood." So there is a point where (I believe) beauty is not subjective. Human designers all gather subjective ideas on a non-subjective world and sometimes without knowing it, recreate a subjective design (enter Colin Rowe's villa analysis.) All that to say: we are told design comes from thinking and analysis and a "discovery" from within, yet we find a natural "survival of the fittest" in design through mathematical and geometric rules set thousands of years ago, still through what is being built today. Hence in my opinion, the end of postmodernism and many other architectural movements.
ReplyDeleteThis post reminds me of the interior photo of the Jewish Museum in Berlin (designed by Daniel Libeskind) where the person was standing on tiptoes to get a peak out of the diagonal crack of a window. There's certainly intention behind design choices like that. Those choices that seem, in effect, to isolate the building from the person, instead of allowing the building to serve the human's needs. Maybe the decision was perfectly calculated to allow for the perfect sliver of light meet a portion of a wall at a certain time of day? Or maybe (and more likely) they're the design decisions of an architect that was able to defend those choices with authority? Either way, I agree that ignoring the human aspect of buildings is an arrogant way for an architect to act.
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with this. I feel as though many architects design in ways that are not actually practical or functional, and this is a great example of that. Deconstructive architecture definitely is more about the architect seeing designs as an art form rather than a functional building, and it makes it hard for the users to have a good experience since the architect almost seems to forget about the users in these types of designs.
ReplyDelete