Architects created their own style of building structures in last century. Cardboard Architecture is very important for post modernism. I think it’s not only a change from old style architecture to modernized style architecture, but it is a criticism of the old style architecture. This is a kind of more abstract architecture, which more focuses on “the infinite of space”, and it is not about functionalism but it includes more scientific elements inside the architecture. All of the apparent structural apparatus-the exposed beams, the freestanding columns are in fact non-structural. (p30, Eisenman). He presented his idea in his House I and House II with this idea. He also criticized the old style of architecture such as Baroque and so on. Because they are too magnificent to be a useful building, what Peter thought was to build more dynamic, scientific and useful building. And Cardboard Architecture is a perfect answer for his style.
Not only Eisenman has this kind of idea, Wolf Prix also uses this kind of idea. The infinite of space makes the designs more dynamic and gives viewers a feeling of high-end technology. This is absolutely the tendency of designing.
In my opinion, I think this is a huge step from Classical architecture to Post modernism. And for now on, there are only few buildings are built with Baroque or any other classical style. But on the other hand, these classical architectures are also a kind of step to pull the design area into gorgeous style. So in the future I believe, there will be a specific activity to overturn Cardboard Architectures.
Eisenman, Peter. 1967. Cardboard Architecture.
Prix, Wolf. 1998. “Between Heaven and Hell: Architecture of Clouds.”
While I do agree with some of your comments, it’s also important to note that Eisenman in particular draws a lot of inspiration of past works, particularly of Renaissance Italians works. Therefore, it’s important not to make the reductive distinction between old-and-new, or classical-and-contemporary. And while Eisenman’s work certainly is contemporaneous to Postmodernism, it would be difficult to categorize his approach as such – if anything, he represents an extension, a modernization, of Modernism through formalism.