Eisenman is the architect of the semester. I am going to set the personal goal to try and fully comprehend his theories on architecture because I think it really challenges and expands upon my previous ideas on what the discipline is about.
For one, I never thought that the term functionalism was independent of modernism.
The text clear reveals a view on architecture which resonates with Rossi’s. The idea of architecture for architecture’s sake; the idea of studying architecture as a language and using this language in a non-terse manner.
What I found most interesting in the extract was the theory that the architecture of the pre-industrial revolution demonstrated a balance of both type and program. This is very interesting because when we think of modernism (which was meant to challenge almost everything that preceded it on the grounds of criminal use of form and aesthetic) we think that it was the advent of a period which synergized form and function. Eisenman argues otherwise and he does so by clearly delineating the difference between functionalism and modernism, even though the latter is often misunderstood as being inextricably linked to the former.
In explaining the beginnings of this disruption in the balance of form and function with the coming of functionalism, Eisenman cites the increase in the need for architects to accommodate a large number of clients (an increasingly social-oriented goal). With this came a moral imperative felt by most architects which translated into a formal language. Having recently seen a video in which Eisenman believes that it is not the job of architects to ”change the world”, I understood where this argument was leading to. Eisenman believes this moral imperative no longer has a strong place ”within contemporary experience” (p.237). I do have a question about why he thinks this is so. Was he focused on the post-ww2 boom economy which led to a supposed long period of peacetime ”prosperity” which might have masked the chronic prevalence of inequality and poverty which existed half a century before and might have played a huge role in setting the stage for and vindicating the democratization of design and the moral imperative which came with functionalism?
Eisenman argues that one of the most defining moments of modernism was its displacement, in the mindset of people, of man away from the center of the universe (metaphorically speaking and literally as well). Eisenman additionally asserts that this conclusively signaled a move away from humanism. This was a paradigm shift for me. The metaphor he gave of man being displaced brought to mind Galileo’s battles with the Catholic church in his attempt to debunk the geocentric model of the universe. The broader significance of this point in history (coupled with Newton’s advancements in physics, math, etc.) was the beginning of science’s triumph over faith — something which we have discussed in class as a sort of proto-modernism period. This fact buttresses Eisenman’s notion of this movement away from the focus on man in multiple disciplines. However, this pivotal point could also be used to argue that in many ways the scientific revolution — which played a huge role in defining modernism – possibly led to a moderately Randian view of man as a supremely rational being (the be all end all, also Rene Descartes: ”I think, therefore, I am”) who is wholly capable of determining and shaping his world (basically the scientific revolution might have given us an ego boost and entrenched us firmly in the center).
Eisenman, Peter. 1976. Post Functionalism.
Excellent thoughts on a number issues stemming from Eisenman’s readings/lectures. If anything, I would say that Eisenman’s major contribution is not necessarily the arguments that he puts forward, but the legwork required to be critical of his arguments. I encourage you to keep asking yourself of the architect’s capacity/responsibility to “change the world.” Since time immemorial to today, this imperative is often understood as a given to the role of the architect, and to act otherwise would be to pursue a meaningless (or at least less meaningful) architecture.