Relying on the Axonometric Drawing
Eisenman’s diagrammatic process defends important questions as to why we design the forms we do, but without referencing the axonometric projection drawings, could the built projects stand critically on their own? Is it intended for the diagrams and the built projects to rely on one another to determine their success? I feel like the significance and essential meaning would be incomplete without the presence of the other. When comparing the color axonometric of House VI to the built structure, I would argue that when translated into a three-dimensional form, the final design tends to lose certain aspects of the original character and underlying concepts present in the drawing proposal. It almost seems like the two pieces need to be studied together in order to fully understand Eisenman’s vision.
Going further with that too is the angle of the perspective. Being a top down angle, both users and the casual observers wouldn’t even understand the perspective he was working with or why decisions were made. The work is very De Stijl esque, which relied heavily on abstraction, so perhaps it’s following the same ideas in abstract art that things don’t necessarily have to be either understood or explained to be enjoyed.
ReplyDeleteThis observation seems critical to keep in mind when designing for an experience. If you were to design this building solely in the diagrammatic view as seen on the right. You get to experience the color, but as stated once you leave that view, the experience is completely missed. A drawback to designing in these diagrammatic ways could be that the designer misses out on the actual experience at human scale, and only perceives the design through an axonometric world.
ReplyDelete