Language & Geometry
Eisenman's view of pure geometry as the 'language' of architecture neglects the role of architecture as functional space and misinterprets the nature of language. To say that geometry is the language of architecture is to render the practice of architecture lifeless and continue to rely on the visual and graphic as the sole means that architecture can and should be contemplated, created, and consumed. Most importantly, defining the language of architecture as geometry divorces it from people, culture, and community, which language can never do; they are forever, irrevocably linked. Therefore, removing social consciousness from architecture, as Eisenman does, eliminates any parallel whatsoever that it can have to language.
I find your point on this interesting. I agree that separating architecture from everything but pure geometry makes it lifeless. However, like language, I would argue that separating architecture is virtually impossible to fully do. Eisenman aims towards it in his designs, but the buildings still have a program and a context. They had to have some other guiding factor past the geometry. In a way, language and architecture are parallels because no matter how much we try, separating them completely can't happen without living them incomprehensible.
ReplyDeleteI find it ironic that he views the language of architecture as something simple and devoid of human context like you mentioned, yet in the same breath waxes poetic about the intricacies of architecture using not so simple and devoid language. I agree that architecture and language are intertwined, so it is peculiar one could use complex language to describe architecture like he does and not recognize that the "language" of architecture itself must also be complex.
ReplyDelete