>steve replies:
>i think it is important to note the 15 year differential between the two
>about texts-opinions. Despite its erudition, Eienman's text is very much
>also an attack on post-modern architectural design as well as propaganda for
>his own "brand" of design (at that time). it is somewhat ironic that brian
>receives an inspiration, a way of looking at today's built environment, from
>Eisenman's 1984 text that may indeed be exactly opposite to what Eisenman
>proposed 15 years ago.
steve, could you expand your thoughts of this on the list?
i think there is more than one way to read a text, so, i am a little
confused that it is the opposite of what it "really" means. please
fill in the details of my misreading..
> to more fully understand Eisenman's text it is
>necessary to know Tafuri's texts as compiled in _The Sphere and the
>Labyrinth_, particularly the notion of (classical) language being dead.
>[unfortuanately, Tafuri's big example of dead classical language is/was
>Piranesi's Campo Marzio, and it is there that Tafuri is entirely wrong,
>which by extension undermines Eisenman's argument as well.]
as you must know, the text surrounds the idea of 'the classic' versus
'the classical'. the classic architecture is. the classical architecture
is a representation of the classic. from this point forward, the only
change i make in my interpretation is between the concepts of 'building'
and 'architecture', which i think offers an expanded understanding of
a potential meaning of present-day representation. 'the classic' and
'the classical' are not limited to 'classical Western Architecture',
but instead between representation and object.
>brain, you are and have been looking to understand a design language that is
>almost entirely ignored by the design profession, and that is (i think) the
>greatest value of your work. at this point, be careful not to confuse your
>own issues with other texts that may or may not apply. your own originally
>is probably your greatest asset.
please enlighten me then Steve.. i differ in that i do not view my work
as original but completely mundane, of the everyday- at the reach of a
novice to understanding architecture and meaning in the built environment.
i would instead say the opposite of my architectural research, and think
that the other path is one of elitism and excessive navel gazing.
>the above was more of a specific reply, and for a more general reply to
>Eisenman's end-beginning-end text see www.quondam.com/1999/3/0259.htm --
>there you will find a "design of a house 1983" accompanied by some real
>schizophrenic text written by my brother (which is coincidentally a perfect
>(non)reply to Eisenman) plus a small detail of my former living room. the
>living room photo is merely incidental, but the plan and the text are there
>precisely to be "read" with regard to classic(al) "literacy" (or the
>end-beginning-end thereof).
why not share some of it on the list, keeping the momentum of the
architectural discourse...
>mark wrote:
>In the opening pages of Civilisation & Its Discontents, Freud makes some
>interesting remarks about the nature of memory and psychic structure in a
>metaphorical pasage about the architectural history of Rome. Malcolm Bowie
>once memorably suggested that this could provide the basis for thinking
>Freud as town planner!
>
>another general steve reply:
>see www.quondam.com/1999/2/0136.htm and follow the "eros and death" link to
>encounter another "metaphorical pasage about the architectural history of
>Rome" courtesy Piranesi (who knew exactly what "classic" architectural
>literacy was all about, not to mention his knowledge of the dead language of
>Latin).
this too..
bc
>i think it is important to note the 15 year differential between the two
>about texts-opinions. Despite its erudition, Eienman's text is very much
>also an attack on post-modern architectural design as well as propaganda for
>his own "brand" of design (at that time). it is somewhat ironic that brian
>receives an inspiration, a way of looking at today's built environment, from
>Eisenman's 1984 text that may indeed be exactly opposite to what Eisenman
>proposed 15 years ago.
steve, could you expand your thoughts of this on the list?
i think there is more than one way to read a text, so, i am a little
confused that it is the opposite of what it "really" means. please
fill in the details of my misreading..
> to more fully understand Eisenman's text it is
>necessary to know Tafuri's texts as compiled in _The Sphere and the
>Labyrinth_, particularly the notion of (classical) language being dead.
>[unfortuanately, Tafuri's big example of dead classical language is/was
>Piranesi's Campo Marzio, and it is there that Tafuri is entirely wrong,
>which by extension undermines Eisenman's argument as well.]
as you must know, the text surrounds the idea of 'the classic' versus
'the classical'. the classic architecture is. the classical architecture
is a representation of the classic. from this point forward, the only
change i make in my interpretation is between the concepts of 'building'
and 'architecture', which i think offers an expanded understanding of
a potential meaning of present-day representation. 'the classic' and
'the classical' are not limited to 'classical Western Architecture',
but instead between representation and object.
>brain, you are and have been looking to understand a design language that is
>almost entirely ignored by the design profession, and that is (i think) the
>greatest value of your work. at this point, be careful not to confuse your
>own issues with other texts that may or may not apply. your own originally
>is probably your greatest asset.
please enlighten me then Steve.. i differ in that i do not view my work
as original but completely mundane, of the everyday- at the reach of a
novice to understanding architecture and meaning in the built environment.
i would instead say the opposite of my architectural research, and think
that the other path is one of elitism and excessive navel gazing.
>the above was more of a specific reply, and for a more general reply to
>Eisenman's end-beginning-end text see www.quondam.com/1999/3/0259.htm --
>there you will find a "design of a house 1983" accompanied by some real
>schizophrenic text written by my brother (which is coincidentally a perfect
>(non)reply to Eisenman) plus a small detail of my former living room. the
>living room photo is merely incidental, but the plan and the text are there
>precisely to be "read" with regard to classic(al) "literacy" (or the
>end-beginning-end thereof).
why not share some of it on the list, keeping the momentum of the
architectural discourse...
>mark wrote:
>In the opening pages of Civilisation & Its Discontents, Freud makes some
>interesting remarks about the nature of memory and psychic structure in a
>metaphorical pasage about the architectural history of Rome. Malcolm Bowie
>once memorably suggested that this could provide the basis for thinking
>Freud as town planner!
>
>another general steve reply:
>see www.quondam.com/1999/2/0136.htm and follow the "eros and death" link to
>encounter another "metaphorical pasage about the architectural history of
>Rome" courtesy Piranesi (who knew exactly what "classic" architectural
>literacy was all about, not to mention his knowledge of the dead language of
>Latin).
this too..
bc