This week we read about Peter Eisenman, another critique of functionalism in modern architecture. While he isn’t completely against functionalism, he emphasizes that it should not be the main priority, we should instead focus on form. Eisenman believes that modernism “fundamentally changed the relationship between man and object away from an object whose primary purpose was to speak about man to one which was concerned with its own objecthood” (Eisenman). We’ve seen this belief before, where architects/critics argue that good architecture consists of one that isn’t defined by men, but rather creates its own meaning.
In “Post-functionalism,” he also brought up an important term when it comes to discussing modern architecture— “architecting” (Eisenman ). It basically combines the ability to create architecture but also the importance of it’s criticism. As he mentions, this began with modern architecture which I thought was interesting when thinking of previous time periods, the architecture is defined solely by the aesthetic-related characteristics. Unlike modern architecture, good architecture was mainly focused on answering the question “is it nice/interesting to look at?” whereas now we have to throw function into the mix.
His comments on “Cardboard Architecture” made me wonder what he thinks of buildings who were built not really focusing on the function but rather the form (as he suggests) but still had a certain function to fulfill? One example I can think of is the Farnsworth House by Mies van der Rohes. It follows the principles described by Eisenman in “House I” and it had the intent of being a house. However, it failed its purpose as “Farnsworth infamously sued the architect over issues like frequent floods from a nearby stream, swarms of bugs attracted to what is essentially an illuminated glass box, rusty steel beams, and poor ventilation” (Allen 1). So is deprioritizing function really as successful as Eisenman believes? Can the Farnsworth House still be considered one of the best examples of modern architecture according to Eiseman’s standards?
Eisenman, Peter. 1976. Post Functionalism.
Allen, Eric. “5 Examples of Iconic Modern Architecture That Have Serious Flaws.” Architectural Digest. Architectural Digest, May 25, 2017. https://www.architecturaldigest.com/story/modern-architecture-that-have-serious-flaws.
I’m glad to read how you’re crossing different argumentative lines, for example between Eisenman and Allen (by the way, an excellent theorist and a contemporary, if not slightly younger). Further to your question – does good architecture have to function well (e.g. not leak) in order to be ‘good’? Or perhaps it’s not a matter of just good and bad, but good and bad for whom? Also, while we’ve read a number of texts regarding a reaction to Modernism (pretty much the entire semester), it’s important to compare and contrast them, as I think the curriculum shows how nuanced the past century has been in its reaction to Modernism.