Eisenman
While it seems as though Peter Eisenman’s designs are random and chaotic, they have purpose and intention behind them, even if it’s hard to understand. He gets criticized a lot for his work while other architects, like Daniel Libeskind and Zaha Hadid, get praised for their designs. To me though, the intentions in his designs come across as more than just an artistic choice which makes even the most absurd things in his designs seem like they do have a function and a reason to be there. For example, in the Wexner Center, the scaffolding is purposefully meant to look incomplete, with some parts exposed while others are enclosed. However, it helps to spatially organize the site. With Zaha’s work, it’s very apparent that she was a sculptor first before going into architecture because her buildings feel like an art piece that’s not meant to be interacted with, but instead admired. Libeskind’s work, while it can have intention behind it, often seems to be more of him just wanting to clash different styles together and push things to the extreme even if it’s not functional. For me, I actually prefer Eisenman’s work to Hadid’s or Libeskind’s because his chaotic choices have intention behind them.
I completely agree with this. I feel that Eisenman's work is more intentional and thoughtful. I think the indexical approach he takes creates design decisions that are grounded in reason versus being pulled from thin air.
ReplyDeleteI have always been very critical of Eisenman's work. I think that my criticism is rooted in his use of experimentation and design at the expense of the user. You characterized his work as chaotic and random, but with purpose and hidden intention. Not that I disagree entirely with your post but I question why some of his design choices lose functionality. Like the scaffolding of the Wexner Center, or the spatial organization of his house experiments. In this regard, maybe Eisnman's designs are no better than Hadid or Libeskind?
ReplyDeleteThis is a really good point. If we're going to criticize architects for "unnecessary" focus on form then we should at least be fair about it rather than judging some and praising others. Perhaps the critique of Eisenmann would be more fair if his buildings were nonfunctional mainly useless spaces, but since they do seem to contain program what is the big deal if he allows for some moments of beauty for the sake of beauty? Must something serve a functional purpose to be of value?
ReplyDelete