Eisenman's Ornamentation
With Peter Eisenman's ornamentation of the Wexner Center of Art, Eisenman views that ornamentation should be a crucial part of the architectural language which reflects ideas driving the design. I find this interesting because specifically with the Wexner Center, if you would change or take away the exposed “scaffolding” structure, how would that change the project itself? Is this what really drives the project? With it not serving as protection from the weather nor supporting the main structure, if it is taken away and replaced with other details does this become a completely new project? I feel that when designing with ornamentation in mind as the driving force, there is a danger that when these details become the whole identity of the project they can cripple the overall design because of the way they are seen as decorative thus showing that they can always be changed. But if the main design is built around this then changing it would always go against its initial purpose.
I think its an interesting question - because it seems like the design would be crippled by the lack of that grid.. I do wonder when I look at projects like this that the geometry here is the detail and because of that it must be expressed - while in classical architecture, the geometry in embedded within the form/spatial relationships and the detail is applied - of which you can remove the detail and a building can still have merit.
ReplyDeleteI think the scaffolding goes beyond ornamentation. The implication with ornamentation is that it is only serving as a decorative element for a piece, however the scaffolding serves as a definition of space within three dimensions. It occupies a space in plan and section, and interacts with the building, three dimensional space, and creates shadows. While these shadows serve no real purpose such as shading the occupant, they set a tone within this space
ReplyDeleteAs Alex mentioned, I think Eisenman and those who share his philosophy would disagree with you terming the non-functional structural elements as ornament. I however, agree with your point and would personally argue that this is essentially the same thing as ornament or achieves the same result. The distinction they apparently draw is, to me at least, merely semantic, and I'd also argue that, even if you don't classify it as ornament, if it becomes the primary identity of the project, then it becomes functional in identifying and defining the project.
ReplyDelete