Deconstructivism: PETER EISENMAN

By Kenny Lau

From the grandeur of the forced-perspective Roman columns to the charred veneer of the Bruder Klaus Field Chapel by Peter Zumthor, spectacular architecture is rarely free from sensual experiences that emphasises the qualia of the aesthetic journey. After all, feeling is an integral element of architecture … right?

This is something that renowned architect Peter Eisenman would beg to differ. A proponent of deconstructivism in architecture, Eisenman distances himself from the emotional and embraces the intellectual, arguing that semiotics should take precedence in an attempt to open up new ways to appreciate space. Highly controversial due to his theoretical, non-hands-on approach, he argues that architecture extends beyond buildings, remarking that ‘ “real architecture” only exists in the drawings. The “real building” exists outside the drawings.’ It is statements like these that have rendered him a radical among the community of starchitects, with late architect Christopher Alexander accusing him of “f*cking up the world”.

Inevitably, we would be led to wonder if Eisenman is a sage or charlatan. Let’s dive into his history in order to have a grasp of his philosophy. An acquaintance of Derrida, Eisenman developed an interest in separating structure from meaning. Believing that components of inhabitable structures have been associated with certain ideas by the historical and cultural development of architecture, he treats them as signs that point towards connotations, or the signified. He proceeds to experiment with them in an attempt to create open signifiers that resist unitary meaning and introduce plurality. In that sense, a column might no longer be seen as a vertical support, and a roof need not be concerned about shelter. Notable early works of Eisenman include a series of case study houses. House II contains two separate structural systems, one made of walls and the other of columns, which both could support the building independently. House III was created by overlaying two perpendicular geometries over each other, with one rotated through 45 degrees.

This inquiry into the relationship between form and meaning, characterised by its conceptual purity and modernism, came to a halt following a fallout with the client of House X in 1976. Eisenman found himself reassessing his priorities, saying that “I realised that what was wrong with my architecture was that it wasn’t from the ground.” Renouncing his prior self-contained houses, Eisenman incorporated the physical context to bring even more complexity to his ideas, playing at an urban scale. The Wexner Center for the Arts, Ohio, is a prime example. Eisenman designs competing systems that permeate and form the basis of the architectural configuration. A uniform horizontal scaffold extends throughout the dissected and amalgamated forms. A red brick exterior that alludes to the mediaeval armoury that originally occupied the site opens up to reveal glass panels interlaced between ivory-white metal frames. Dissonant, overwhelming intersections make way for grand, minimalist spaces. These contradictions serve to repudiate conventions in construction and challenge the plausibility of commonplace architectural notions.

Albeit attracting circles of critics, Eisenman’s creations hack at the fundamentals of architecture itself by posing questions no one has dared to ask, embodying his ideals in landmarks such as City of Culture of Galicia and Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe. In turn, Eisenman has garnered a reputation of possessing an old-world intellectual capacity fused with a new-world boldness, granting him a spot in the illustrious collective, The New York Five, a group of postmodernists who rose to prominence in the 70s. Such figures have shown the world that architecture need not be an aesthetic practice only concerned with form and function, but rather a multi-faceted discipline that responds to philosophical, historical and cultural contexts.