Some of his work is almost pre-modern.

Like the Bruder Klaus field chapel, made from rough timber forms that were burned out once the rammed earth mixture was poured.

i am not simplifying the definition of language. language IS everything. meaning that everything has its own language. i am not limiting my credo "language IS everything" to the spoken or written word.

vado

i think you should write a song about Eisenman vs Zumthor

Why are you assuming that Eisenman has had a consistent (or monolithic) career? There are, or have been at least three Eisenmans: semantic (Chomsky and Saussure), post-structuralist (Derrida) and post-humanist (too bored to figure this one out). The only consistent thread has been drawing and projection methods, though now augmented by computers.

Derrida was initially more concerned with exploring the fissure between speech and writing and the privileging of speech. Derrida does not 'say' that language cannot say anything in the end, but rather that writing or speech as constituted may have additional meanings or codings beyond the primary interpretation.

cowerd, good comments.

It's kinds of complicated story.
But, let me make the long story short.

"additional meaning" means there's no the origin and speaking subject, because meaing's always postponed to be defined.

We cannot define who speaks or what the speaking designates because of the fissure.

In the end, Language cannot say anything clear, but says always others so that cannot be communicated in a "perfect" way like people speaking different languages.

I guess your idea is not that different from mine, but my poor english makes some confusions.

By the way, I am not interested in Eisenman.
Because, his architectrue is less interesting than a good architect's, and his speaking is less interesting then a philosopher's.

syp

Everything is more complicated than has been represented here. I only paid attention to Derrida through On Grammatology, so any additional development by Derrida towards loss of meaning is well beyond me.

I just think it will be difficult for the OP to treat both Eisenman and Zumthor so reductively and come out with an intelligent paper.

cayne1

instead of wasting your time writing a 15 page paper, learn how to detail concrete...

Actually, I like the idea of the paper signalling a shift from a semantic, linguistic approach to architecture (Eisenman) to a phenomenological, sensory one (Zumthor.)

I think it's a big subject to tackle, but it's certainly doable.

And that pretty much sums up Eisenman...nice job, syp!

that would only work if either eisenstein moved more toward zarathrustra or zarathrustra moved more toward eisenberg in their own work...

Cowerd,

Once again, who spends time coming up with these categories? Where are the limits of these categories? What was the exact moment when Eisenman shifted from being a post-structuralist to a post-humanist? Was it in the shower one morning? At breakfast? During a lecture he gave?

What specifically defines a post-humanist anyway? Does it have blue fur, or acellerate at 9.8 seconds/meter squared? Did a writer like Francis Fukuyama give the definition, and we've all just stepped up and accepted it?

My point is that these kinds of linguistic games and categories are artificial impositions on an evolutionary process. No architect in his or her right mind would want to be labelled any of these things. Architects evolve. Critics come in afterward, sift through the detritus, and label trends and architects according to some artificial schema.

farwest1

For the most part Eisenman himself is very explicit about his theoretical shifts. There are a number of moments when the shifts are clearly discernible and signaled by Eisenman himself, through either projects (clearly documented with text) or purely academic papers. There is no third party interpretation of tea leaf reading necessary. Whether or not these self-assigned changes in approach have any validity or affect on the formal nature of the work is another matter.

Robin Evans wrote a brilliant review of an Eisenman exhibit at the AA, in which he found that the theoretical shifts were not clearly articulated in the work. Succinctly: same old work, new excuses.

Architects are sometimes very happy to be labelled or give themselves labels (publicity etc). We wouldn't have modernists, post-modernists, regionalists otherwise. Labels sell.

When Derrida says that there is nothing outside the text, he doesn't mean that everything is words. He means that nothing escapes the general properties of textuality. There are many non-word-based languages.

Good point. Labels do sell. But I guess what I was getting at is that these labels often tend to obscure the more organic transformations going on in the field.

Trying to force architects and their work into categories sometimes obfuscates the work and its real meaning.

And to jump back a bit, Sokal's paper is a minor historical footnote, not an epoch-changing event.

a slight aside perhaps; but of those that are currently using a deconstructivist-sih formal language (morphosis, coop, tschumi..?) have they changed their theoretical justifications much?

i think you should write a paper comparing and contrasting EIFS and gypboard construction with concrete and wood construction

Sokal's piece signalled a shift in perception regarding the manipulations of postmodern theory. It may have been minor, but what it represented was a large cultural/academic shift.

After that paper was published (and the subsequent book) it was hard for heavy-duty postmodern theorists to be taken seriously any longer. You don't hear much conversation these days about Derrida, Lyotard, et al.

Sokal's paper was a major moment for people bemoaning the 'moral relativism' of post-structuralist theory. All that paper made apparent was that people who don't understand theory write crap papers about theory.

Derrida et al aren't going anywhere. They just aren't trendy anymore. Can't swing a cat without hitting a Benjamin scholar these days. Go back about twenty years and you'd have a hard time filling a bathroom stall with people who had heard of him. Theory is fashionable as well.

i thought there was a rumor going around that we were 'post-theory' now. ???

if you think derrida, lyotard etc aren't relavent, you haven't spent much time with a doctor of postcolonial studies...

perhaps frank gehry being mentioned on the rachael ray show is more relavent.

doctor, can you tell me if my other is out of joint?

It's not that theory disappeared. It just retreated to a small corner of academia, and released its control over the profession of architecture. It's no longer fundamentally relevant to what we do as architects. I read all that stuff fifteen years ago, enjoyed it, it changed my way of thinking. But I question how relevant it is now.

I'd challenge you to name a serious practicing architect now who still talks in terms of post-structuralist theory. Even Eisenman has to some extent moved on from his earlier obfuscations (though I don't know how serious he's considered any longer.)

Oh crap.
Considering the turn this conversation has taken and the fact that my first draft is due in three weeks, Maybe the idea of writing "a paper comparing and contrasting EIFS and gypboard construction with concrete and wood construction", seems a bit more appropriate.
This seems like a pretty deep rabbit hole to jump into. Any thoughts on keeping it a bit more superficial and still plausible. It is for an English class and not an architecture-type class, so it won't be graded so much on depth or accuracy - not that I don't want to get my facts straight.
The idea of researching the paradigm shift from theory to the more sensory does seem interesting and doable - any suggestions on sources I might check out? This shift must have been researched / discussed before.

By the way - a hearty 'thank you' to any and all suggestions and tips thus far.

you tell us that it is for an English class now...

high-school or college level english?

Not all theory is post-structural, guys, there are other ideas to talk about, and architects are still talking about ideas, yes, post-theory or not.

College - sorry for leaving that little bit about in being for an english class out. It seems a few folks enjoyed the deeper conversation anyway, and so far it has been (for me) a good, educational read - a bit over my head sometimes due to lack of exposure, but enjoyable.
I would like to take this paper a bit deeper than just a "throw-away" english paper with a bland topic and take this opportunity to learn about some theory and why I don't like Eisenman and do like Zumthor (and Ito, Cutler and Kundig). I think Eisenman and Zumthor represent two polar opposite views / approaches and I'd like to investigate that. The suggestion to look at the historical shift seems the most plausible.

since it's not necessarily about the architecture itself, then, you could also explore the way that eisenman is a GREAT talker - practically a performance artist in some lectures - and zumthor's a more private person who might almost like to be invisible. search some vids of their talks to see what i mean...if you can find a zumthor talk.

language of course has its limitations, and also relies on the influence of things outside yourself to determine its meaning. Someone discussing the architectural theories that drove the realities of the building you are experiencing relies on someone else's translation. Eisenmen, in a way, becomes the middle man or translator for his buildings, because so much of their theoretical value tends to be driven by the underlying theory. And that theory can never be translated accurately, because though the theory might be sound, language is contextual.

Where as Zumthor allows the translation between experiencing and understanding the building to happen within ones self. The tactile sensations meshing with the visual experience is something that needs no translation from architect, or tour guide. It there fore seems to be a much more personal experience, and in that way also much more flexible.

this is a fantastic conversation, and i really think there is something to think about in idea of how each person translates their buildings into experience.
It seems, at least simpified, that it breaks down to which is a more stable means of translation... Language, or sensory experience

farwest1

Lots of architects still ground projects with theory. alejandro zaera-polo is one of the foremost architectural interpretors of deleuze. foa seems to have run away screaming from deleuze, but yokohama or forum 2000....wow. un studio also does nice deleuzian diagrams as projects. patrik schumacher is still recycling post-fordist David Harvey in his recent papers. Lots of the OMA grads are highly dependent on post-industrial economic and social theory to justify program and process.

not as explicit as eisenman, but that's part of the show as Steve Ward alluded. an eisenman lecture is like going to church.

cayne1


you basically have 15 pages of content from the above thread...edit wisely

language or sensory experience sounds like a false choice to me.

and Zumthor has theory as much as Eisenman. He frames his practice in terms of existentialist and phenomenological philosophy.

im not sure language vs sensory experience in this case is a false choice. in fact, i dont see it as a choice at all for the viewer. Both could be equally useful in experiencing a space. The point i was trying to make is more a question of intention. For this comparisons sake, it seems Eisenmen's approach includes an extra step of translation, through which purity of vision (for a lack of a better term..) could be lost.

so how would either approach a commission for designing a house for the other? I think that could be your paper. and a third year design studio.

Eisenman will go do in the architectual history as the Creator of the George W. Bush Library which will be based upon all of his theory, as
there is no budget and no program. It should prove to be a grand architectual experimentation wrapped in symbols none of us will ever understand because we are outside of the great mythical halls of Politics.

phuyaka, that's actually a really great idea for a project!

mdler - do you think I can get away with citing all these contributions as peer reviewed research? What's the citation format one would use anyway?
This is all fantastic stuff.
lletdownl - language vs. sensory experience has some promise - no need to go too deep into the actual theory, just establish it's basis for motivation, maybe combine that with highlighting the shift from one to the other.....
agfa8x - You're right - Zumthor quotes Heidegger right up front in Works, so there is some philosophical / theoretical basis behind his thinking.
phuyaka - that is rad! If I can find a way to pull that off I'll demand a plaque and a ceremony where all the pretty girls throw their underwear at me like Tom Jones (back in the day).

there is no way on this earth you should quote a web forum as a reference.

I know, just kidding.

No doubt there are theoretical and philosophical underpinnings to Zumthor's work--as there are with all architects. I'm a huge advocate for phenomenology and other serious philosophy, as well as political and social theory in the making of architecture.

I was referring earlier specifically to deconstructivist and post-structuralist theory—the variety that Eisenman and so many others subscribed to in the 80s and 90s—and Derridean/Lacanian obscurantism in particular.

Since this thread was about the oppositions of Eisenman and Zumthor, it seemed important to point out the bankruptcy of thinking that underpins much of Eisenman's work.

This is what philosopher John Searle said about it, "...anyone who reads deconstructive texts with an open mind is likely to be struck by the same phenomena that initially surprised me: the low level of philosophical argumentation, the deliberate obscurantism of the prose, the wildly exaggerated claims, and the constant striving to give the appearance of profundity by making claims that seem paradoxical, but under analysis often turn out to be silly or trivial."

We might modify this quote to be about Eisenman's work: anyone who LOOKS AT deconstructive BUILDINGS with an open mind is likely to be struck by the same phenomena that initially surprised me: the low level of philosophical argumentation, the deliberate obscurantism of the FORM, the wildly exaggerated GESTURES, and the constant striving to give the appearance of profundity by making DETAILS that seem paradoxical, but under analysis often turn out to be silly or trivial."

conflating derrida and lacan. heh, having a bad day at the office. fine, you don't like whatever you don't like. but derrida has never claimed that his method of analyzing a text is a philosophy. searle is tilting at strawmen.

you ever reading being and time? the same arguments from searle could apply to heidegger. unless of course you have a thingess for beingness.

"Sonja: Boris, Let me show you how absurd your position is. Let's say there is no God, and each man is free to do exactly as he chooses.What prevents you from murdering somebody?

Boris: Murder's immoral.

Sonja: Immorality is subjective.

Boris: Yes, but subjectivity is objective.

Sonja: Not in a rational scheme of perception.

Boris: Perception is irrational. It implies imminence.

Sonja: But judgment of any system of phenomena exists in any rational, metaphysical or epistemological contradiction to an abstracted empirical concept such as being, or to be, or to occur in the thing itself, or of the thing itself.

Boris: Yeah, I've said that many times."