What I took away from the Eisenman reading was that although entering into an era into Post-Modernism is a good progression for architecture, many architects are still making the same mistakes when analyzing architectural form. What I mean by this is that many buildings are classified as leaning more toward form or functionalism, and that these two are separate dichotomies rather than something that can coexist and be integrated with each other. “One by which the terms continue to be function and form. In so doing, an attitude toward architecture is maintained that differs in no significant way from the 500-year old tradition of humanism” (Eisenman 236).
Eisenman elaborates on this claim by explaining how pre-industrial architecture focused more on creating a harmonious relationship with the landscape, which gave birth to different cultural staples when it came to building construction. A balance between form and function could be more easily identified because the construction and design process focused less on solving and maneuvering around social issues. However, this shifted after the rise of industrialization. “With the rise of industrialization, this balance seems to have been fundamentally disrupted. In that it had of necessity to come to terms problems of a more complex functional nature, particularly with respect to the accommodation of a mass client, architecture became increasingly a social or pragmatic art” (Eisenman 236). I agree with this conclusion because we can see how cityscapes have shifted from pre-industrial cities to modern one. Removing cost and construction efficiency, we can see a lot of duplicate structures especially with skyscrapers, while pre-industrial cities had a lot of distinctions depending on where in the world you were. Rather than construction with consideration for the flow of the landscape we see a lot of uniform solutions to the question of developing cities and surrounding areas. It would seem that architects are privy to try and follow a form-function formula as Eisenman puts it, rather than trying to find a more unique form of problem solving.
Eisenman, Peter. 1976. Post Functionalism.
A largely accurate and inoffensive take on Eisenman’s approach – but I wand to read either stronger praise or criticism of his ideas! What are the consequences of this mistaken and tired distinction between form and function? How has Eisenman addressed this through his work? What kind of comparisons/contrasts can you make with architects that addressed similar concerns?