* Eisenman rails against the use of modern software in architecture school, launching a stinging attack on the processes associated with parametric design. “Technology is a cruel tool, because what it does is defer the possibility of the student being creative. The student can take an algorithm, produce 50 alternatives to the same problem … It takes away from you the possibility of value judgment.”
* This post does not reflect my personal sentiments nor I disagree with it. Of course, the timing of the piece is carefully chosen as attention grabbing Venice Biennale news item. It grabbed mine.
I'm pretty sure everything eisenman has ever said can be discounted as the incoherent ramblings of a lunatic. i suppose some reasonably intelligent people hold similar views. maybe there would be more here if it came from someone less senile.
at the end he says if you're an architect stuck on a desert island, you would take 10 books instead of a computer. i guess he doesn't really understand how google play or a kindle works? probably doesn't really understand how fedex works either. i can use my phone to have amazon deliver me 100 books as well as some sunscreen, a bottle of water, and a bag of chips.
he got so close with the church of the year 2000... what happened, Esienman?
Did you get scared you were losing control? Just not want to learn new software? It's really fascinating for me that he is part of the lineage from Deleuze to Bernhard Cache to Eisenman to Greg Lynn, yet he totally disowns this stuff now.
That's a good question. I'd argue that after the shameful performance Petey gives in the crit I've linked below, the man has surrendered any authority to say anything about pedagogy ever again. Sometimes it's possible to be such a gaping asshole that your opinions need to be dismissed entirely.
I can get past the personality, preferring to dissect words more than people….I do agree with the intent….something about art & the fingertips, the pace of it…at least at the outset.
its the same argument used in music and cinema- substance vs. superficiality, how high our generation sets standards with regards to everything, etc etc.
He is late to the party anyway...like an intellectual conquistador trying desperately to plant his flag in ideas and dialogues that have been exhausted and well articulated by others...but like the explorers that landed in "the new world" he regards the people already there as lesser than people...and with his tone presents the idea as if he discovered it....Intellectual imperialism is very annoying....and all of the Archi-gods are guilty of it...
Schamcher actually did go up against Eisenman at the Archagenda debate at the Chicago Biennial this past fall... or rather, Eisenman presented, then Schumacher presented, then everyone talked about Schumacher's presentation, then Eisenman fell asleep on stage.
Peter Eisenman is now officially irrelevant. Nice Marc, I believe an algorithm could of done Peter's thesis in a split second..........my favorite essay that sheds a lot of light on this man's lack of substance is Kipnis' Twisting the Seperatix (something like that).
The thing that bothers me is that he readily admits he doesn't understand the paradigm shift, but it's problematic. He doesn't know why, but it's wrong. I'm not clear how he can talk about authority and resistance if he chooses not to engage the tools and discourses that may be larger than art (eg. the anthroposcene).
incase he is willing to learn something. Resistance in computers can be called Feedback. Recommended reading includes Norbert Wiener. For Parametricism Peter should read his own shit on diagrams.........
the solid base that is missing in architecture are basic skills and understanding how buildings are put together. PE is behind the major lack of this based on his theories - deconsteuction. its a disappointing video to say the least.
That solid base always seems to shift from region to region and office to office. There always seems to be that problem of "who taught you to do/draw it this way," even after you get out in practice.
I do appreciate PE's overall tenet that architecture is more than the building and is affected by conditions and scenarios that are larger than practice or the artifact. I don't appreciate the fact the he "stopped." He was part of a group of people who altered design practices significantly with his counter-humanism agenda, so he should be aware that things change.
So as a academic when you stop learning you stop teaching, and you stop being relevant. Which is ok- that is commonly the cue to seek emeritus status if you have been at the institution long enough.
Sound bites and video editing, that is the extension of critical discourse in many school environments.
Eisenman disarms himself by proposing viewer engagement to his building. Much like an artist invites that kind of engagement. Problem solved, he needs no further explanation, diagrams, etc.. Much like an artist ejects the making of the piece from the final art and opens the work for interpretation and visual consumption. It works for art but architecture works the opposite direction. It contains a lot of reasons and comprehensible structures of any kind. At the end, it must have criteria. He somewhat wasn't able to solidify that criterion. Theoretically, his work is incomplete or patched to a degree of self contradictions.
Here is when I first saw Eisenman and he was a top narrator.
Schamcher actually did go up against Eisenman at the Archagenda debate at the Chicago Biennial this past fall... or rather, Eisenman presented, then Schumacher presented, then everyone talked about Schumacher's presentation, then Eisenman fell asleep on stage.
yep - he slept and when he a woke, the the world has changed - I will send Peter the link to the Autodesk website, Grasshopper and Rhino so he can download the latest and relearn
"A withering old man on the lawn yelling at kids."
Maybe.
Has every new technology brought unambiguous progress? Does it always make the world a better place? Or is it true that, sometimes, occasionally, we go down the wrong path and need to course-correct? And someone needs to stand up and say something?
for eisenman to be a withering old man on the lawn yelling at kids:
not every new technology has to bring unambiguous progress. maybe it's only one technology, or a few technologies, that have caused eisenman to become as useless as he is. no point in pretending it's universally true to all technologies.
said technology or technologies don't have to always make the world a better place. in fact, whether they make the world a better place or not has no relevance to eisenman becoming a withering old man, but for perspective, technology doesn't have to make the world better every time. one time, or a few times, is enough.
it is true that sometimes we (in most any possible group of 'we') go down the wrong path. this is a good argument for why eisenman should course-correct and quit being such a dolt.
eisenmann should not be standing up and saying something until he gets his shit together and becomes a better person and/or architect.
Isn't the whole point of technology and innovation is to make things easier for us and to allow for different options that haven't been available before?
I had a elder lady shout at me a few years back because I was wearing a digital watch, she insisted that I should spend my time outside playing with my friends instead of wearing a digital watch, I was 21.
And yes , his personality affects his credibility as an architect/artist. Negative and arrogant people like him are incapable of knowing beauty... Evident in their ability to elude the humbling powers of nature and art...which is impossible if one knows how to see...as he said himself in that video...he can't create what he dosent know.
Nuclear weapons and all sorts of petroleum-based technologies allow us different options that haven't been available before. We should ask ourselves whether those options increase the common good.
Has every new technology brought unambiguous progress?
is the goal to point out that nuclear technology is bad, therefore all technology is bad? thus eisenman is redeemed for being a withering old man on the lawn yelling at kids.
1. Eisenman's philosophy of architecture could not be more opposed to mine. In my opinion, it's nihilistic and monstrous. The part where he talks about, as architects and artists, we have to "get over" naive notions about making people's lives better is stunning to me, but should not surprise anyone who is familiar with his work.
2. That being said, I agree with him about the "cruel tool" thing. The architectural universe is filled with architecture that is derived through digital technology which is morally ambivalent. Architects have too often decided that the digital form generation is "it", is the point, and have not layered a moral dimension into the work. I think this is what he means by the technology allowing the architect to "defer judgement".
Eisenman's "judgement", his morality, is very different from mine, but I think his point is well taken. Just because we can do something doesn't mean that we should do it.
"is the goal to point out that nuclear technology is bad, therefore all technology is bad?"
Of course not. The goal is to point out that some technology serves the good, and some does not, and we have to use our judgement to discern between them.
But pencils are morally ambivalent. Pen and ink is morally ambivalent. Why would autocad, or any other instrument lacking a brain the size of a planet not be morally ambivalent.
If you disagree with how the instrument is being used, then say something to the technician. Be explicit and interrogate what you see as the flaw in their approach (teaching), but don't just point at a computer screen, say "that's bad," and then pick up a cell phone to call your spouse about dinner.
"But pencils are morally ambivalent. Pen and ink is morally ambivalent. Why would autocad, or any other instrument lacking a brain the size of a planet not be morally ambivalent"
I agree, they are all morally ambivalent. The problem lies in the fact that the computer is so effective at rapidly generating alternatives, and quickly creating convincing and interesting form that it allows the architect to defer or completely ignore the moral dimension of the work. It's the equivalent of junk food - initially titillating and satisfying, but ultimately empty of meaning. I think this was Eisenman's point.
doesn't have to be empty of meaning. that, again, is due to the user of the tool rather than the tool.
also depends on how you define 'meaning,' and more specifically what meaning there is in the work we do. i'm sure there is plenty of 'meaning' in eisenman's work. still isn't any good. (an architect's end product is the building, not the drawing, by the way. imho)
architecture is not a singular discourse, in fact, technology is just a portion of it. Bottomline is its all about how the architect delivers his message. Having the latest Design Package in your pocket does not guarantee anything, but having said that, be prepared to use these tools when required.
"we have to "get over" naive notions about making people's lives better is stunning to me, but should not surprise anyone who is familiar with his work"
Why is it stunning? IMO there are 3 main types of architects,
The ones that lust overwhelming power and presence.
The ones that are simplying doing a job.
The ones that want to improve lives.
I personally went into architecture to design for relief and poverty but I know many who just want to create sculptures of power. Off topic I know.
“Technology is a cruel tool" -Peter Eisenman
* Eisenman rails against the use of modern software in architecture school, launching a stinging attack on the processes associated with parametric design. “Technology is a cruel tool, because what it does is defer the possibility of the student being creative. The student can take an algorithm, produce 50 alternatives to the same problem … It takes away from you the possibility of value judgment.”
Peter Eisenman - TIME SPACE EXISTENCE
* This post does not reflect my personal sentiments nor I disagree with it. Of course, the timing of the piece is carefully chosen as attention grabbing Venice Biennale news item. It grabbed mine.
I agree and disagree. Can't blame the hammer for the idiot who wacks at a screw....
I'm pretty sure everything eisenman has ever said can be discounted as the incoherent ramblings of a lunatic. i suppose some reasonably intelligent people hold similar views. maybe there would be more here if it came from someone less senile.
at the end he says if you're an architect stuck on a desert island, you would take 10 books instead of a computer. i guess he doesn't really understand how google play or a kindle works? probably doesn't really understand how fedex works either. i can use my phone to have amazon deliver me 100 books as well as some sunscreen, a bottle of water, and a bag of chips.
how out of touch can the guy be?
He's the grumpiest man of all time. I can't take grumpy people seriously.
the donald trump of architecture strikes again
good burn jla-x first comment
And it takes a designer to know which alternatives of the 50 work best.
can we get beyond the personality, please?
he got so close with the church of the year 2000... what happened, Esienman?
Did you get scared you were losing control? Just not want to learn new software? It's really fascinating for me that he is part of the lineage from Deleuze to Bernhard Cache to Eisenman to Greg Lynn, yet he totally disowns this stuff now.
Wasn't trace used to produce 50 (or 48) alternatives "back in the day?"
Didn't Hejduk have an exercise of drawing 1000 triangles?
I know a lot of people hate PE, but he has a point.
can we get beyond the personality, please?
That's a good question. I'd argue that after the shameful performance Petey gives in the crit I've linked below, the man has surrendered any authority to say anything about pedagogy ever again. Sometimes it's possible to be such a gaping asshole that your opinions need to be dismissed entirely.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQFEaAUrfAk
Is tech overused in studio? Yeah, probably. Do I care what Eisenman thinks? No. Fuck that guy.
I can get past the personality, preferring to dissect words more than people….I do agree with the intent….something about art & the fingertips, the pace of it…at least at the outset.
could we go beyond the ramblings of an old man?
its the same argument used in music and cinema- substance vs. superficiality, how high our generation sets standards with regards to everything, etc etc.
Its all about setting the bar higher
+++anonitect.
He is late to the party anyway...like an intellectual conquistador trying desperately to plant his flag in ideas and dialogues that have been exhausted and well articulated by others...but like the explorers that landed in "the new world" he regards the people already there as lesser than people...and with his tone presents the idea as if he discovered it....Intellectual imperialism is very annoying....and all of the Archi-gods are guilty of it...
I'll just be here waiting for a patrik schumacher rant...
I know a couple of cruel tools. I say use them all, why discriminate?
What is this anywayz?
I can't wait to see what quondom's program does with this.
cipyboy -
Schamcher actually did go up against Eisenman at the Archagenda debate at the Chicago Biennial this past fall... or rather, Eisenman presented, then Schumacher presented, then everyone talked about Schumacher's presentation, then Eisenman fell asleep on stage.
patrik is probably shitting inside a paper bag that's going to arrive at eisenman's office in 2.5 weeks.
Peter Eisenman is now officially irrelevant. Nice Marc, I believe an algorithm could of done Peter's thesis in a split second..........my favorite essay that sheds a lot of light on this man's lack of substance is Kipnis' Twisting the Seperatix (something like that).
All of this parametric garbage is the result of his own architecture of autonomy legacy.
The thing that bothers me is that he readily admits he doesn't understand the paradigm shift, but it's problematic. He doesn't know why, but it's wrong. I'm not clear how he can talk about authority and resistance if he chooses not to engage the tools and discourses that may be larger than art (eg. the anthroposcene).
I do find his comments with respect to authority, art, and resistance a little funny when compared to to Meinhard von Gerkan and Denise Scott Brown
writing an algorithm to design involves a lot of resistance...
like to see him try.
A withering old man on the lawn yelling at kids.
incase he is willing to learn something. Resistance in computers can be called Feedback. Recommended reading includes Norbert Wiener. For Parametricism Peter should read his own shit on diagrams.........
We all should go back to using chalk and stone tablets.
the solid base that is missing in architecture are basic skills and understanding how buildings are put together. PE is behind the major lack of this based on his theories - deconsteuction. its a disappointing video to say the least.
That solid base always seems to shift from region to region and office to office. There always seems to be that problem of "who taught you to do/draw it this way," even after you get out in practice.
I do appreciate PE's overall tenet that architecture is more than the building and is affected by conditions and scenarios that are larger than practice or the artifact. I don't appreciate the fact the he "stopped." He was part of a group of people who altered design practices significantly with his counter-humanism agenda, so he should be aware that things change.
So as a academic when you stop learning you stop teaching, and you stop being relevant. Which is ok- that is commonly the cue to seek emeritus status if you have been at the institution long enough.
Sound bites and video editing, that is the extension of critical discourse in many school environments.
Eisenman disarms himself by proposing viewer engagement to his building. Much like an artist invites that kind of engagement. Problem solved, he needs no further explanation, diagrams, etc.. Much like an artist ejects the making of the piece from the final art and opens the work for interpretation and visual consumption. It works for art but architecture works the opposite direction. It contains a lot of reasons and comprehensible structures of any kind. At the end, it must have criteria. He somewhat wasn't able to solidify that criterion. Theoretically, his work is incomplete or patched to a degree of self contradictions.
Here is when I first saw Eisenman and he was a top narrator.
Peter Eisenman My Work As It Relates To Social Guilt, SCI Arc, 1978
Schamcher actually did go up against Eisenman at the Archagenda debate at the Chicago Biennial this past fall... or rather, Eisenman presented, then Schumacher presented, then everyone talked about Schumacher's presentation, then Eisenman fell asleep on stage.
yep - he slept and when he a woke, the the world has changed - I will send Peter the link to the Autodesk website, Grasshopper and Rhino so he can download the latest and relearn
"A withering old man on the lawn yelling at kids."
Maybe.
Has every new technology brought unambiguous progress? Does it always make the world a better place? Or is it true that, sometimes, occasionally, we go down the wrong path and need to course-correct? And someone needs to stand up and say something?
for eisenman to be a withering old man on the lawn yelling at kids:
not every new technology has to bring unambiguous progress. maybe it's only one technology, or a few technologies, that have caused eisenman to become as useless as he is. no point in pretending it's universally true to all technologies.
said technology or technologies don't have to always make the world a better place. in fact, whether they make the world a better place or not has no relevance to eisenman becoming a withering old man, but for perspective, technology doesn't have to make the world better every time. one time, or a few times, is enough.
it is true that sometimes we (in most any possible group of 'we') go down the wrong path. this is a good argument for why eisenman should course-correct and quit being such a dolt.
eisenmann should not be standing up and saying something until he gets his shit together and becomes a better person and/or architect.
Isn't the whole point of technology and innovation is to make things easier for us and to allow for different options that haven't been available before?
I had a elder lady shout at me a few years back because I was wearing a digital watch, she insisted that I should spend my time outside playing with my friends instead of wearing a digital watch, I was 21.
And yes , his personality affects his credibility as an architect/artist. Negative and arrogant people like him are incapable of knowing beauty... Evident in their ability to elude the humbling powers of nature and art...which is impossible if one knows how to see...as he said himself in that video...he can't create what he dosent know.
Nuclear weapons and all sorts of petroleum-based technologies allow us different options that haven't been available before. We should ask ourselves whether those options increase the common good.
Being more specific would help, EKE. What do you mean?
related to your statement:
Has every new technology brought unambiguous progress?
is the goal to point out that nuclear technology is bad, therefore all technology is bad? thus eisenman is redeemed for being a withering old man on the lawn yelling at kids.
WHAT THE FUCK IS HE BLABBERING ABOUT?
I just listened to the interview video.
A couple of personal observations:
1. Eisenman's philosophy of architecture could not be more opposed to mine. In my opinion, it's nihilistic and monstrous. The part where he talks about, as architects and artists, we have to "get over" naive notions about making people's lives better is stunning to me, but should not surprise anyone who is familiar with his work.
2. That being said, I agree with him about the "cruel tool" thing. The architectural universe is filled with architecture that is derived through digital technology which is morally ambivalent. Architects have too often decided that the digital form generation is "it", is the point, and have not layered a moral dimension into the work. I think this is what he means by the technology allowing the architect to "defer judgement".
Eisenman's "judgement", his morality, is very different from mine, but I think his point is well taken. Just because we can do something doesn't mean that we should do it.
"is the goal to point out that nuclear technology is bad, therefore all technology is bad?"
Of course not. The goal is to point out that some technology serves the good, and some does not, and we have to use our judgement to discern between them.
But pencils are morally ambivalent. Pen and ink is morally ambivalent. Why would autocad, or any other instrument lacking a brain the size of a planet not be morally ambivalent.
If you disagree with how the instrument is being used, then say something to the technician. Be explicit and interrogate what you see as the flaw in their approach (teaching), but don't just point at a computer screen, say "that's bad," and then pick up a cell phone to call your spouse about dinner.
"But pencils are morally ambivalent. Pen and ink is morally ambivalent. Why would autocad, or any other instrument lacking a brain the size of a planet not be morally ambivalent"
I agree, they are all morally ambivalent. The problem lies in the fact that the computer is so effective at rapidly generating alternatives, and quickly creating convincing and interesting form that it allows the architect to defer or completely ignore the moral dimension of the work. It's the equivalent of junk food - initially titillating and satisfying, but ultimately empty of meaning. I think this was Eisenman's point.
It's not a press the button and it's done!
So what is an example of a building with good morals EKE?
doesn't have to be empty of meaning. that, again, is due to the user of the tool rather than the tool.
also depends on how you define 'meaning,' and more specifically what meaning there is in the work we do. i'm sure there is plenty of 'meaning' in eisenman's work. still isn't any good. (an architect's end product is the building, not the drawing, by the way. imho)
But again, that's blaming the tool, not the technician or the teacher.
architecture is not a singular discourse, in fact, technology is just a portion of it. Bottomline is its all about how the architect delivers his message. Having the latest Design Package in your pocket does not guarantee anything, but having said that, be prepared to use these tools when required.
PE hit a wall and decided to stop evolving.
+ curtkram.
I'm betting that the problem lies in that his meaning which lies in postmodernity has become less relevant- pushing him out of his comfort zone.
why is or could "Versioning" be such a meaningless thing?
"we have to "get over" naive notions about making people's lives better is stunning to me, but should not surprise anyone who is familiar with his work"
Why is it stunning? IMO there are 3 main types of architects,
The ones that lust overwhelming power and presence.
The ones that are simplying doing a job.
The ones that want to improve lives.
I personally went into architecture to design for relief and poverty but I know many who just want to create sculptures of power. Off topic I know.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.