The underlying concepts discussed in these readings and in the lecture are related to this course as a whole. They consider the question, ‘what is architecture’ and ‘what makes architecture successful’. All three information centers give a convincing argument as to why architecture isn’t solely based on function. What is interesting about the concept of functional architecture is that the etymology of the word ‘function’ isn’t related to the use of something or use of space but related to the purpose and performance of something, someone, or space. Because of this, it can be argued that architecture is the creation of a successful function. This definition contrasts against Eisenman’s and Wolf Prix’s theories in definitive terms, but not in concept. They reject functionalism in architecture related to the programing of spaces and concept of design through functional eyes, however, they support the idea that designing through complexity, contradiction, and formal relationships can create successful architecture. In those cases, the purpose of architecture isnt the program of spaces but the performance of relationships and elements. Eisenman wrote that, “…the architectural object, on this view, is just a representation of architectural logic itself.” (Eisenman-1976, 1) which directly relates to the product of architecture being dictated by the purpose. This indicates that they are, indeed, designing through function.
Whats most enticing about this concept is the way that it works rather than the products it creates. Throughout this course we have covered several disparate methods of design but the common denominator between them is that the purpose of the design methods was critically examined and thoughtfully considered. Although the purpose of design was different between architects and theorists, they were all concieved through achieving a purpose, or function (in the previously described terms).
If we examine the function of these methods, there are some more successful than others. Eisenman and Prix are successful because the purpose of their architecture is generally received by those who experience it. Eisenman wrote “In summary, three shifts were attempted in House I. Each concerned an attempt to separate the actual physical environment from its traditional relationship to function and meaning, to neutralize the influence of these on the viewer.” (Eisenman-1967, 33) His purpose of design and performance of architecture match up, therefore, he was successful. On the other hand, Robert Moses’ purpose for design was to deliver mass housing that worked for the people living in it and for the developers funding it. He was not successful because the design of the mass housing did not work for the people meant to inhabit it and therefore was often abandoned and eventually torn down. He was unable to fulfill the purpose of his design for the people living in it and for the developers funding it. Back to a successful production of architecture, is Wolf Prix. In the lecture he described that, “We always wanted to go in our heads, we want to experience our ideas, by moving into our ideas with our body [which] means building. And you have to develop a lot of tricky strategies in order to avoid first the circumstantial pressure, the politics, or better! To bend it in the direction you want to bring them so that means the circumstance of pressure or the codes, rules, politics, they don’t guide us, they don’t lead us, they don’t bend us, in opposite, we try to use the force in order to get through with our ideas…” (Prix, begins around min 16). He was able to produce the ideas that he had in his head to experience them with his body and therefore his purpose was met.
When we look over the architecture we have studied this semester, time and time again, regardless of the function or purpose, as long as it is met with the product (which could be a drawing, or a building, or a theory, etc.), it is much more successful than those that don’t. Even if nobody likes the building, if the goal was for nobody to like it, it becomes more successful.
Eisenman, “Post-Functionalism” (1976)
Eisenman, “Cardboard Architecture” (1967)
Prix, Lecture at the Architectural Association (AA) (1998)
Very interesting observations… and I’m incredibly excited to see how you’re connecting various discourses covered over the semester. Regarding your last paragraph, I do agree that in the making of ‘something’ (building, drawing, sketch, etc), the architectural idea attains to a certain voice that may not be possible with rhetoric alone. Also, an important note is that Eisenman was (and is) a big fan of Venturi – despite the massive stylistic and even conceptual differences, there is a genuine respect for approaching architecture through its history and theory through a critical (as opposed to a purely pragmatic) perspective.