Десять канонических зданий, 1950-2000

by Peter Eisenman, Питер Айзенман, Иван Третьяков (Translator)

Десять самых важных послевоенных архитекторов, десять очень разных зданий - они не только построены с разными целями, в разной стилистике и из разных материалов - различаются и их теоретические и идеологические программы. Умение понимать эти программы требует особых интеллектуальных навыков. Опыт и урок такого пристального чтения архитектуры - в книге лидера деконструктивизма и одного из крупнейших современных архитектурных теоретиков Питера Айзенмана.

Genres: Architecture, Design, Reference, Nonfiction, Theory

312 pages, Paperback

First published June 24, 2008

About the author

Peter Eisenman is an American architect. Eisenman's professional work is often referred to as formalist, deconstructive, late avant-garde, late or high modernist, etc. A certain fragmenting of forms visible in some of Eisenman's projects has been identified as characteristic of an eclectic group of architects that were (self-)labeled as deconstructivists, and who were featured in an exhibition by the same name at the Museum of Modern Art. The heading also refers to the storied relationship and collaborations between Peter Eisenman and post-structuralist thinker Jacques Derrida.

Reviews

[Mark]

One of the first books I purchased whilst a student at the Architectural Association in London in the Eighties was a book called Five Architects. Peter Eisenman was one of those architects and his drawings and buildings in the book struck me at the time as both sophisticated, intriguing and thoughtful architectural explorations. Eisenman has built an impressive career as a teacher/intellectual as well as architect/builder. His theoretical approach engages with philosophical thought and enquiry and occasionally he publishes his latest musings. . I find reading Eisenman is a challenging and difficult task at the best of times. When I do make the effort to 'study' and penetrate his texts i find the ideas implausible and not worth the effort of having to plough through his often turgid text. for example ......

''The idea of ambiguity lodges itself in a dialectical notion of either/or and determinate/indeterminate, which as decidable characteristics, possess a supposed clarity which belies any need to examine their repressions'

What i do understand of his work is best expressed in the drawings. The drawings in this book are exquisite; analytical studies of ten buildings by eminent modern architects, the book earns it's three stars on the basis of these drawings......

[Johnjbrantley]

To my understanding, there are two major theoretical undertakings Eisenman has undertaken as a thinking architect. The first is an attempt to deprive buildings of any kind of symbolic meaning and instead substitute a formal poetry. The second, represented in this work, is his development and application of a method for systematically analyzing modern architecture.

The ten buildings, it should be mentioned, are not his own. There is a relatively short theoretical passage at the beginning, followed by a series of meticulously drawn diagrams. The diagrams actually do serve to justify many of the exciting and abstruse points he makes in the passage. Furthermore, one becomes well-acquainted with his basis for architectural analysis, which I am convinced is a powerful tool to have handy.

Some of the issues addressed did not seem powerful or pertinent. For example, while structure seems an obvious candidate for an important design element that can be systematically analyzed, some of the distinctions he makes in this category seem minute and hairsplitting. I am tempted to believe that such abstract perfection is indeed worthwhile, even if no one really notices. Nonetheless, my design conscious tells me that it would best off to restrict attention to the differences that make an impact.

[Aarif Ahmad]

Idiosyncratic

Diagrams, progression, isolation of elements, shown in full
Images, sketches, introduction.

Found the analysis on Leicester Engineering Building interesting (solid & volumetric glass)
Return to Casa "Il Girasole".

Canonical: "it follows a principle or rule, usually in a religious or church-related situation"
"considered to be among the best and most important, and worth studying"

[Michael]

I may not be the only one to find this book a little heavy-handed. Eisenman takes great pains to stuff what seem to be his favorite buildings into already well-established theoretical frameworks of his (undecidability, indexicality, textuality) and the results are sometimes surprising, sometimes trite. The (theoretical) clothes fit best in relation to Eisenman's generation (Libeskind, Gehry, Rossi) and less so with earlier generations (Moretti, Corb, Kahn) and those with whom he disagrees (Venturi). It's simply difficult to believe in the intentionality of the theoretical engagement Eisenman projects.

The formalism Eisenman maintains throughout this book is admirable, rarely veering into questions of context or culture. Eisenman's entire oeuvre -theoretical and architectural - is dependent upon such autonomy, essential in his mind to maintaining the integrity of architecture as an intellectual pursuit. This book fits cleanly within his overall trajectory, and exploring its applicability to the work of others is a worthy exercise if somewhat clumsy in execution.