Steve, thinking a few things...
- that 'the classic' i think Eisenman refers to is considered a non-
representational architecture. i admit to having difficulty in under-
standing the whole of the argument, but the part i think i get. and
how i would apply it to today is by saying there can be classic
architectures in our proximity right now, which we might not even
acknowledge due to their mundaneness. what, 150 years from now, will
be made of a gas station from the 1950s that is still preserved as
an architectural object. will it not, in a sense, be considered
classic in some way.. the same for television stations, super-
computer buildings, radio stations, powerplants...
- it reminds me, representation does, of the early cars that looked
like horse carriages and buggies, the Ford Model A & T. these, i
think could be said "look like something else". likewise, i think
the architecture of representation can be applied to the analysis
of our everyday built environment. in Alameda architectures [1] on
my site, and in reference to the AutoCAD architecture post on this
list, i had documented the decay of a building that had Z-Brik or
Z-Brick falling off its facade, like makeup peeling off of a face.
http://www.architexturez.com/site/research/essays/alameda/alameda00.htm
i think this 'representation of brick' via a new, simulated brick
makes me think of much of this everyday architecture as potentially
being representational via the applique of ornaments of style and
materiality. thus, shutters on homes, and...
- the thing that strikes me as odd about Eisenman's article, even
given the 15 year gap in time between writer/reader, is that the
very things (representation, reason, & history) that were outlined
as unnecessary were, it seems to me, the basis for his new version
of another, different kind of representation, reason, and history.
taken on Eisenman's terms, his building may not function at these
levels because it was not his intention. but, i feel a certain
truism that people might find themselves saying: 'this looks like
an explosion hit the building'... i understand Eisenman is peddling
his own brand of architecture, but, i do not think the essay focussed
so much on his work as on the idea of 'architecture as invention'.
are architects simply 'inventors' of form? and not meaning?
bc
- that 'the classic' i think Eisenman refers to is considered a non-
representational architecture. i admit to having difficulty in under-
standing the whole of the argument, but the part i think i get. and
how i would apply it to today is by saying there can be classic
architectures in our proximity right now, which we might not even
acknowledge due to their mundaneness. what, 150 years from now, will
be made of a gas station from the 1950s that is still preserved as
an architectural object. will it not, in a sense, be considered
classic in some way.. the same for television stations, super-
computer buildings, radio stations, powerplants...
- it reminds me, representation does, of the early cars that looked
like horse carriages and buggies, the Ford Model A & T. these, i
think could be said "look like something else". likewise, i think
the architecture of representation can be applied to the analysis
of our everyday built environment. in Alameda architectures [1] on
my site, and in reference to the AutoCAD architecture post on this
list, i had documented the decay of a building that had Z-Brik or
Z-Brick falling off its facade, like makeup peeling off of a face.
http://www.architexturez.com/site/research/essays/alameda/alameda00.htm
i think this 'representation of brick' via a new, simulated brick
makes me think of much of this everyday architecture as potentially
being representational via the applique of ornaments of style and
materiality. thus, shutters on homes, and...
- the thing that strikes me as odd about Eisenman's article, even
given the 15 year gap in time between writer/reader, is that the
very things (representation, reason, & history) that were outlined
as unnecessary were, it seems to me, the basis for his new version
of another, different kind of representation, reason, and history.
taken on Eisenman's terms, his building may not function at these
levels because it was not his intention. but, i feel a certain
truism that people might find themselves saying: 'this looks like
an explosion hit the building'... i understand Eisenman is peddling
his own brand of architecture, but, i do not think the essay focussed
so much on his work as on the idea of 'architecture as invention'.
are architects simply 'inventors' of form? and not meaning?
bc