PETER EISENMAN: Fin dOu T Hau S 10 f~bruary - 1J M.l1'Ch 1985

Not to be used for wrapping purposes

I hne had trouble coming to terms with wri t ing about Eisenman's work. Th~ plrti~ul.i.r "Io rk und.·r review. a series of models lnd drl""ings o f l four· stlge tr.uuformation perfo rmed o n a cube house. exhibited I t the AA . is more characteristic thln it issignificanl. It h;udly bru ks new ground, but that is not itself the difficulty. The difficulty is writing. Here am [, writing lbout a work thl t claims for itsdf the status o f writing, that tells us it cannot be detOlChed from the writing th:J.llCCompanies it (~ys by Nina Hofer and Jeffrey Kipnis) and ""hich, in so fM;as it IS the work of Peter Eisenman, is prOtected by a great volume of writing by himself and others. Much o f the writing by othcrs has been h ighly cri t ical in to ne, it is true. yet this docs not seem (0

matter haJf so much as the tnnsferring into mOSt of it o f the same little zoo o f terminologies and examples with which Eisenman populates his o wn archi­tectur.ll wri t ing. More like a process o f bacterial infection than critical discussion.

In these circumstances opposition becomes just another species of affi rmation. adding furthe r to the great \'olume o f writ ing. Ho "" then to escape this ingeniously set tr.lp of unwilling complicity? Thert' is a strong temptat ion to bring it all down (0 a ges­ture. In the middle of a rt'Cent lecture at the RIBA. while Eisenman was d iscoursi ng on the absence of presence and the presence o f absence. a nlember o f the audience. thinking it timt' to leave. stepped in front o f the projector, hiselCp.inded shadow eclipsing the imlgeof the slide fora fe"" well<hoscn moments., thus illustrlting the ahsen<e of prescnce and the pres< ence of lbst:ncc: in .... 'onderfully concrete terms. Since it was made without wo rds or ""riting it could be proposed as the mOSI teliingcritique to wte. T he rest of the audience certainly rated it thus, though more for its explici tness thln its intellectual content .

But maybe he docs not deserve this kind of treat· ment either. Of thlt well-eStablished gl.'ner.uion o f wdl·kno wn east COlSt American archittcts perhaps only he lnd Hejdu k do nOi merit the dismissive gnture. Both nevenhelessopen themselves up to it.

in similar ..... ays; i-I l.'jduk ..... ith his unutterable poetry: Eisenman with his ind igestible prose. What I would like to look into here is the role of writing. ho ..... il operates as a modd fo r Eisenm1n 's an:hitecturt'. and ho ..... the printed ..... o rd ...... hile Sttming to provide an entrlnCe to the hermctic objects he creatcs ...... orks in quite the reV<!fSC' direct ion: it is the ..... o rds that make the o bjects they describe hermet ic.

Eisen man has published a number o f full-sca le ess.\ys O\'er the put t ..... o decades. He is literlte and knowk(it;elbk. Though some o f his <'SS.IyS:lrt' tied to his o ..... n proiects, others art' appMently independent items, such 1105 those o n Terngni. 'The Fut ili t y of Objects' and 'The End of the Classical' . All wit ho ut exception in\'olve the construction and m:untenanct' of positions. the determ ini ng o f a sunce. They are expository and didactic. so thl t. although questions mly be: raised. l nd lhhough they are peppered with expressed doubts, these doubts l nd quest ions lfe themselves tecto nic e!eml·ntS of the const ruction. There is nothing quest ionl ble or do ubtful lbout them since they art' mll'Shalled in reiltion to an ;w1vo­cacy lhlttells us .... ·hl t the an:hitecturll work is. what it is about and whlt it is like. 'The Futility o fO bjcru' fo r eumple starts. like a manifesto, .... ,ith th.· dl'CIlf' ation that ' l new sc:nsibi lity .·xim·, l nd then dc.'scribes the characterist ic expressions of the new sensibili ty, ..... hich turn out to bct'xXlly those heCU!­rently lll ributes to his own wo rk. Pursuingacom­pletcly independent line of enquiry, he arri\·es at an identicll se t of conclusions - ~n old forensic trick. Still. th is is the w~y that m hitects write: defensively, o ffensively, as if the words were pan of some CO\'en mi litary campaign simuhant'Ously to promote con· quest and to prOtect the homeland. [t is JUSt thll Eisenman's .... ·rit ing is more extensi\·e.concened lnd imistent than usual. his only rell competitor in this respect bei ng Venturi.

If Eis~:nman says his architeCture is writing. I would s.ty his writing is In armoured vehick. What is it protecting? H is architecture? This .... 'ould be the functio nal explanltion. SOme ..... here inside the ..... rap-

VIt"WojIM Fin d'Ou THou S modd .. nd aJ"hI,um mu.r./Lt,IIo'l /II 1M AA F..xh,blllo'l G,,f/rry(pholo; Polu/lim'tll).

"

ping. under cover lnd difficult of access. is the work . Functional explanlt ions tend to product' :.l compel. ling if largely fnuous self-evidence: the aim of architectural writ ing by Mchitects wo uld thus be to prOlect the work. the aim of architecturll .... ,riting by cri tics to expose it. This formula represents a limited. local truth. Like all functionll explanations it pre­sumes tOO much and recognizes tOO lillIe. It is cer­tainly ungenerous. AU the same. protecti\·e. evasive str.negies abound in Eisenman's writing. The reiter· ltion of recondite. technical terms that suck I11C'lning out of any sentence. The cbim of support from higher authority (mnhematics, linguist ics, phil. osophy). And mo re re«ntl )' the reson to deceptions 19ai nsl audiences and relders ..... h ich will mlke it incrusi ngly difficult fo r critics to catch his tail: the smo kescreen. thC' bluff. the dodge.

Protect ion works both W:l)'5. ZOO officil ls like to point OUt thai their ~ntiquated cagl~ and barred com· pounds hlve 10 be prl'SCf\'w to prol l'Ct tht' anim.:llsas well as the publ ic. Eisenman's writing :llso ..... ·hile protecting his protectS from the audience. more or los in;w1\'enently prOlt'OS the ludierlCC' from his pro­jects. In panicular it C1SIS l \'eil over their stat ic. obdurlte, uncommunicative qu~lit ies.

To claim, in Ihl' footsteps of Jacques Derrida. thll .:Irchitecture is a kind of writing, is nOl itself nouble afte r twenty years of insistence o n the language model. It is the way the claim is used that merits attent ion. In all innocence, o ne might expect thai Jrchitecture. under the influence of ii uch a cbim. would becom.· more ex pressive. though nOi in the .sense th~t. Sly. Schlroun's or Gludi's buildings are $.1id to be expressive. Their kind of t'xpressive archi· tecture depends o n I n excess of formal acti,·i ty. an excnsive shapeliness in comparison ..... it h other archi­tecture. This kind of expressiveness, dependent o n the increased physical presence o f Ihe ..... ork , is fam· ililf to us. The expressiveness of l rchitecture mod­elled o n .... 'riting might , o n the other hand, l rise o ut of the d«rrolW physical presence o f the work. Thus it ..... ould borrow the most astound i ng cha~terist ic of ..... riting: tm- abili ty to bring into being a ..... o rld OH/ ·

mit of it self in terms o f a restricted set of rclations ent irely wi thin itself. With writing. eno rmous sense can be made with a few scrltches. A properly far mort' pro nounced in writing than in speech is that of being able to conjure up an almost corporealvi\' id­nm of impression with a SYStem of con\'ention~lizc:d marks. These impressions are accentuated in such a ..... ly lS to be quite different from those of seeing. hearing and touching umbc'lted by bngulge. It is not JUSt that writing muns something (a condition dif· ficultto l\·oid). but thai it means so very much. being so very little.

The structuralisl$, aware of this strik ing quanti. tali\'e (:lIio. concentrated o n underlying formltions. And cenainly it could be argued thlttheir choice was nOi on ly just ified o n theornicll grounds but, in emphasizing abstract ion, helptd thro ..... contrast ing futures into higher relief. Fo r, as langulge lost iu b.lSis in nltufll origins. and 1105 its physical d ements­sounds and leiters - were rC(ogni1.ed to be: 1105 good 110$

.:Irbitrlry, its e\'O('a t ive po .... ·t'r could o nly appelr more miraculous, nOi less. Ho ..... else to accOUnt for the atlractivenessof structuralism to figures such :as Le\·i-Strauss and Barthes?

AAIILh'~

The si multancous presence of manifest sense and abstraction. the excessive and the minimal, was implicit in the st ructural ist account ofb.nb'UlI~(,. but it is not difficult to imagine:l situation in whIch the subi«"t of nudy would be erroneously identified with the rtason for studying II. ThaI is to uy. thefe would come ... time when, beausc structure hOld been dllo'clt on for so long, astfUCture would be;assumed to contain;dl the propenies of b.nguage if it exhibited II systcnl of rcbuons something like that of language. At which stage of den']opment structuralism could be Slid to hlVC consumed iuown source of inspir­ation_ Thecondilion is nicely summ:uized by Nor­man Bryson, who characu:rizc:s the resulting sp«ics of formalism :.1.5 1 'disposition to trtat Jlrncturt 1$

though il were' inform:.nion. 2nd to rq;ard what may be only a {elture pe.'rminingcommunication ascom· muniCltion llreldy'.

Such dt"sicCltion could not I.'~ily occur within li tl.'nturl.'. no mllll.'T how pruislI.'ntthl.' tht'Ory en· coungi n& il. It is much morl.' likdy. howl.'vl.'r. onel.' tht lingUistic model is I.'xported to OIht'r lllegl.'dly !..ngulge-likl.' lctivities. for I.'umpll.' the Visulllnd pe.'rforming lrtS lnd architt'Cture. Surdy there is I.'vi· dencl.' of this kind of formllism in Fin D'ou THouS. ;u in so much of Eiscnm:.n's work. Behind it lil.'s the presumption thlt. structure being C'SSCnce, the Struc· turt must be iridt'SCl.'m with potl.'mill melning. But wh.n ifit wert not?Whlt ifinstew.1fter this process of di\'estmcnt - undrming the lrchittetur.lll ob}«t of itscustom:uy usociltions, stripping it down until it is.u n(':;lrly .lIS possibll.' a formltion from which ordin.llry iconogr.aphic anllysiscould yidd nothing. the dftel ""ert' nOt one of iridescence but of mute­nl.'SS? Is this not the problem thlt EiS<'nmln flces? The nlture of the problem hdps up!..in the wly in which writingis uS<'d to the diudnnnge of the pro­it'cts by Ei S<'nmln himS<'lf. Wh:n l shall try to show is th1t the problem as formubtt"d mly well be 1n illusion fosll.'red by the very muns he employs 10 shield us from this embMrassing knowkdge. A grUI dul hingcson the forlorn hopr. lfth<, prosp«1 was 10 revellthe interior iridescenc<, th1t belongs to thl.' conceptu;ll structure lnd il failed 10 lppur, onl.' might be temPled. 10 b<havl.' as if il had. lnd then. e\·entu:.Uy. to s;ay that all llong one knl.'w there w.u nothi ng there.

Something must be said of the Wly the structunliSt :account of bngu;age is broughlto h<'M on Eis<'nman's work. in pmicul:.r of the formalist tendency. nOtw above. to identify structure with melning. For it brings out l n interesting peculilrity in the uSt of thl: !..ngu1ge model. HlvingSCC'n thlt langulge involves the p:.r:adoxicli. wondrouscombinltion of the min· imll and the exccssi\'e (elliptic form. hyperbolic StnSt) lnd thinking th:.t this could also be the ClSC in lrchitteture. Eisenmln spe.'nds about tiftct'n yelTS working on an lrchitecture from which everything sUpe.'rfici:.l, circumstlnti:.l. practical and obvious hlS been evaculted.. Right from the beginning it is the model of!..ngu1ge Ih:.t he holds up as his p:.radigm. though lt finl it is Chomsky's Tr~mlonlllllio"l1l Grllmmllr. not Dcrridl's Writing. The change from one to the other. which took plxe Mound 1980. is dis­concen ing beclUSC: it had no noticuble effect on the work. And inasmuch aseither of the modclslllXOl/lIU for the work the former still SCC'ms more 1

A" I'IU5 10

presence thln the Imer (whether their role need 1>1,. rt'Slrictw to accounting (or the work is a queslion 10 ",·hich I shlll return).

But there W.lS 1 proSp«1 in structuralism 100, 1

hope.' th1t by Studyingone sideofllngulge- its for· mll structure, deep or otherwiSt - one W1$ in lny ~ Studying its other aspect. which is the enormous Stnse thlt ""e a n m1ke of il. Nothing could belltr iIluStrlte this hopr Ihln Slussure's likening of bngu;age 10 1 shttt of p;1ojXr. The shec1. h1$ two sides. on one side sounds. on the othtr thought: rtelO lnd verso, different but impossible to detlch from ont lnother. So, if one side is studied. the other is too. Thought trlvels l long in 1 wrlpping of sound, yet the sou nds :.re not hing other th:.n :. vehicle for 1bnraCl rebllons.

Eisenman's hope.' piled on top of SlUSSUrt's hope.' produces something very odd. s...ussure s;aw !..ngulSc to be 1 combin~tion of twO \'ery different things which linl,'Uistics would show to be bonded together. One of these things is studied in the hope.' th1t il "" ill cantlin or illuminate the othtr: Ihe Study of Struc· ture will illuminlte melning. And the Slme hope is cenainly present in the work of Eisenman'$ linguist mentor of the sixl ies, NOlm Chomsky. Eisenmln 5C'eS thll bnguage is the sub~'Ct under consideration. lnd setS 3150 thaI language dispbys some chlrac· teristics si milar to those found in lfchitteturt . .. Now ",·hat? This is ""hert thcgroundshihs. The fin,,1 phrlses in the sequence lre impossible to complete without .m excursus. There is some confusion hert lbout whether lrchitteture is being mlde like !..ngulge or studied like bngu:.ge. Suppose that it could at lust be studiro in the s;ame ""ly th:.t the structur1l ists studied langUlge. Then one ""ould immedillcly be confronted ..... ith the tu k of sench· ing for the regions of resembbnce. There lre. :.fter all. some obvious differences. Forexample. the enor· mous physical stature of lrchitectural constructions COmplfed to the ephemenl nature of words and tht minim:.l physical presence of writing. SI P1Ul'S is much bigger th:.n the collected. works of John Donne. but it is elSier to conceive the Sh1pe of St P:.ul·s, etc. So the identity would hl\'e to be- ""orked for lnd qUllified. not just tlken for gr:tntw. But th is is not rully Eisenmln·sproblem. Much as htcult i· Vltes the idelofhisown :.mbivllent stltus u writer· designer, a theorist whose :.rchitteture is in cloSt di3logue with his writings. he remlins an lrchiltet who uses his writings to esublish the cn·dibililY of his work. Sure enough. the writ ings throw of( plcmy of clptivlting idus. but this, let us usumc for Ihe moment. on the evidence of Whlt they most obvi· ously II" doing, is incidental to their kl.'y role u bodygulrds of the projects. So whlt docs Eisenmln the 1rchitect do? He ukes note of th,' way in which bngu:.gt is beingSlutlwlnd :.ttempts to incorpor;atr in his lfchittcture propeniesderi\'ed from the sludy o{la"guagr in the en of structur.tlism. nOt projXnies derived from bngu:.ge itself. The difftrence is con· siderlble. Ll ngulge. written or spoken. is replete with m3nifest sense; the structural ist lCCOunt of Ilngulge is emptied of it. An lrchitccturc modelled on structunlism. empty therefore of mlnifest StnSt. would not be like bngu:.ge ltlll.

Indeed. :.n lfchit«ture thus conslfuro would probably not be \'ery much like ... ·hlt we normlily

undersund lS lrchitecture either. And th:.t is one ff,'1son ""hy Eisenmln's work should nOt b< dis­missed.. It does something re-lIly \'ery interesting, but it does not do whlt he .uys it d()('s. Thl.' linguistic study of!..ngu:.ge is anliyticll. lnd it is in the nltUre of lnalytic study. u wilh the dissection of nbbits. 10 pull things apan, to det;l.(h things wilfully from their circumsunces lOS« whal dirference it mlkes. T lking ln old·fuhioned w1u.:h lpan 10 Intn how wltches 1I't' m~ is nO'- an unnason1ble activilY. But determining the motions of the clockwork and then reproducing these in concrete is not reasonable ir you Wlnt either 10 tell the time or 10 repreStm il. EiS<'nmln puts himselr in the invidious position of cI~iming to represent the nature of time when he is modelling the mOlionsof the wltch (in ln extempore sonofwlY)·

His architectur~ is nOl like la.ngul(;t. it is more like the study of ilngulge. Likewise it is not writing (though here one- would hl\'e tos;ay thu, in so flf as it is Derridl's conception of writing thll is referred to. it is nOl relily like tht siudy of writing either. il is Sti lllik l.' the Study of Ilngulge in the en of Struc· turalism; the originll mOtives st ill retlin their power O\'l: r wh:.t he does). This might be :.pplied to more thln EiS<'nmln lnd his work . Often the Wly some­thing is studied is euier to usimillte thln the prop­enies of the thing itself; why then should not the mode of study h<'cydcd into the m~king of things:as well-turning the world gradu:.lly inlo a represent· llion of our perceplion of it? 1 would pe.'chaps hlve liked 10 end on this note. but thu would be some­Whlt prem1tUre. A cert1in w~rincss lbout my o""n procedure is in order here, since I hlve become so critical of other peoples'. I should point OUt thll whlt I h:.ve .uid so flf isentirdy the result of Eisenmln's claim th~ t his work is writing. IkcluSt he Sly! it is. 1 say it is not, trying to expllin Ihe differencl.' . In responding thus 1 hlve said next to nOthing 100Ut the models and dnwings. When I hlve lliuded tothem it hu been u evidence l!;linn 1 conceit. This hlppe.'ns time :.nd 19ain to Eisenm:.n. Critics. hacking their W1lIy through the thickness of words, finlily arrive­in 1 Stolte of exhlunion befoft' the objc-ct, lt which poim the episode is usually broughlto 1 c!os.c:. This is Whlt 1 mean by Ihe prolective use of writing. It is unnect'SSlry btcauSt the projects Me often much more imeresti ng th1n their juslificltion. lnd it is counter.productive bec:.rouSt' il defines axes of discus­sion at h<'St t1ngemialto the work. or simpl)' pre· vems lCCCSS lhogether - hence the :,ccuSltion of he-rmeticism.

II is nOi in itself a problem thlt the projects lre modelled on structuralism. nOt on t..ngu~ge (spe.'ak. ing or writ ing). Their dumb insolC'nce 1lso may be more suggesti\'e Ih1n problemllic. for one is forced 10 look. not 10 listen. u it ""ere. The problem is thlt EiS<'nman, like 1 puppe.'teer trying to convince the ludience thll his mlrionetles spc:.k, when 1 dumb show is pe.'rftctly in order. spends tOO milch tiffi(' and effon m1inuining unnteesSlry illusions. If one of these illusions is thlt his ll'chitttture is like IlngulSe. the Olhtr is thll it mO\·e5. ~hybc I should hlVt Starchl.'d for ~ less 199tessive critic:.l simile, for the illusion of movement is. under the circumstances. neithtr IlnneceSSlry nor uninteresting.

At first il ~msto be the ""riting tholt s.imu!.lteslht

illusion of mo\'cmem by .l kind of \'cntriJoquism, spc~king for the ;lfchileC"ture, though in h el ,h(' source is not so u sily determined. One insunce of this will sery(' uan illuSlr21ion. O"l'f the rcm; EiSC'n· man hu nllde use of ;I number of mal hematin] terms to describe the formal properties of his pro­jects. Without benefit of the5e it might seem that not only the House series but;also the more f('l;:Cnt. morc' eclt'Ctic works at Btrlin and Ken! 511(t' and for the Mib,n Biennale arC' subsumw by thrcr-di mensional grids made more or less visible:. All the House pro­jects are generat«i from (ubn. subdivided. cut and shifud in vuiou$ W;1YS. Hefe ..... e have twO of the most essenti;al1y ch:angdess 1l"chitectonic forms brought together in a manner that accemu,l.(ts their immobility. The indefinite C'xtcnsion of the grid con· uinfil within the: cube. gestures to the infin ite trimmed and fitted in boxes. But this combin~tion of s:lmeness and stability is activated by a procedure of successi\'e devdopment u lled tram/ormauo" by Eisenman. This term has since become so ",'ell estab­lished in the international architect ural vocabu· l.~ry that a conscious effort has to be made tosee how the sense of the ..... ord insinuates mO\'ement into the procedure to ..... hich it is applied. Not just any old movement but a particular kind of movement. Eisenman first used the word with reference to Chomsky's tr.lonsformat ion:!.l grammar. The Trans­formational Component in Chomsky's linguistics provided the bridge between wh.lI he s:lW as the

hidden Deep Structures of language and the Surfac(' Structures of senttnct'$. Eistnman s:lW his own pro­cedure - which generally comm('nced with a single a.her.lotion toa cube, ('nding up with something mor(' complu ~nd diverse - as analogous to Chomsky's Tr.Ionsfo rm~tional Compol\(nt. Chomsky in turn h1d borrowed the term from mathematics.

According to either the linguistic or the math· ematical usage. a transformation is a systematic alter· ation of form, simultaneous and pervasive. Howe\·er. the totality and the suddennm are in the history of the term. not in the procedure to which Eisenman

applies it. which is piecemul. pmi"l. cumulat i\·e. dabontive. and is guided not by the m:lpping ofone general system into another. as in mathematics and by implication in linguistKs. but by a compositional sensibility not unfamili"rin the arts. The procedure looks systematic ~nd mathematically rigorous because the drawings are presented in such a way as to give that impression. Knowincly. Eisenman drops in the occasional di.sci.limer. tdling us they Me not really 10 methodical.

Ho"" ever dubious iu name, the transformation tC'Chnique asexemplified in the: House series has been practiSoCd with tonsummate skill, eath house tarry· ing along with it a gnphic pedigree indicati ng the

lall S'nJ,wr, - It ,r,J"s/om,,Jflon; F(:c.y) - (xl.!?)

origin and progress of its own de\'dopment. or­with a blink of the eyes - presenting a SCt of denied projects whose full existence had bC't-n suppressc:d in favour of the one chosen, but ..... hich maimain .1

ghostly prC':SC'nce in the body of the host. Still. the producu of this technique might better be called 51ates than tnnsform:i.lions. after the mgraver's prac· tice of printing:l pble in variousst:agcs as the: image is worked. reworked. er;ucd and built up agOlin. There is less movement in a Slate than in a transformation. :lnd ..... hat mO\'emem it dOl!'s bring with it is cir· tumstantial, Brownian almost.

In the dc-scription of Hou~ Xb(I980) Eisenman introduces topological ftometry. Topology is th ... math ... matical study 0 non·m ... trie surfaces lnu spaces. that is, the in\'estigation of pliabl~ forms within which measured distances are of no acCOUnt . He knows this and indicates as much, yet the pro;c...:t i.s tomposcd of the f:lmiliar metric cI ... ments in the fam iliar orthogon~ 1 format.

More rccently still, with the Romto and Juliet pro­ject for Vitenza. his mind has turntd 10 fraetals, which lre of interest because, in a purely math· ematical sense. they defin~ procedures that seem to exist IOmev.'here bet"" een v.·hole-number dimen· sionality. So. mathem"tically spc'aking, there could be Rid to be some kind of spxe betw~n two dimen· sions and three. Yet the shined grids and dislocations of th is pro~t do not immedi"tely bring to mind anything so par.lodoxic:!.l.

The blind totality of the tnnsformation; the plulicity of the topologital sunate; the inconcei\" able in·bet",,·eenish dimensionality of the fractal, if brought directly into play. would threaten the most sl1bk and fundamentill features of archi tecture as it is now practised. R«:til inurity. measurement, space might all StrC'teh or coll:opse beyond recognition under their pTC'S5ur~, or they might beh1\"e thus if Eisenman's lang of mathematical disruptors wer ... allowed to af t'Cl anythin~ drastically. But no - they appear to have been kept In check. T osuch an extent h:l\'e they been kept in check that it is. at fim. hard to identify e\'en faint t!Xes of their innuence. or to

discern their metaphorical sh:ldows in his tompos­it ions of r«:tilinear fr:lmeworks and reClangul:lr plmes ""hose micubt ions arc determined by whole­number subdivisions (characterist ic.s whith. though they m~y be tr.llced back to nmhematits. ha\'e long sinee bten naturalized wit hin art hitetture). and which for the moSt pm remain undinurbed and undeformed.

If these foreig n mathcmatit:ll terms had been allowed to invade the work they would :llmost cer· tainly h1\"e destroyed iu quintesscnti.u architectural propert ies. They may just possibly have replaeed them e\·entu"lIy. The question is not ..... ithin the r~nge of cuslOmary intuition to dl..:idc -that is part of the f:lsci n~tion in contemplating it - but, gIven th ... laws of entropy and thance, the greater likeli· hood ",'ould be their permanent corru pt ion and obl iter:u ion. A dangerous business. Eisenman is in b tl a julous guardi:ln of the stable and fundlmemal futures of art"hit«:lure. He is r:ldical in his funda· ment"lism. not in challenging fundamentals(though his ..... ril ing constantly straim to suggest the Imer). Yet there w,u one remMkableexteption. Atlhe final 51:lf;eof the:development of Hou5C' X. mer the eighth proposal and "fter thedient had decided nOl 10 go ahud and build. e\'en though working drawings had b«n ronlpletoo. so the story got'S. l model w,u made. It Wl$ not a model of the house 1$ it would have been built. howe\·er. but a model which ..... l$ panially col· lapsed. all the uprighu ie:lning forty·five degrees in the s:r.me direction. So. although a full·bodied model, it borrowed some of the character of an u:onometric pro~lion. and appc'ared to be in .1 sute betw ...... n dnwing (just push a lillie further) and four.square. thn.'t"'-dimension:!.l architecture: an intermediate con· dition. It is allO the only true trall5fonnation. in the mathematical sense of Ihe word, that he has ever performed on his work. He dOC's not call it a Irans­[orm;l\ion. though, for the stries of what he calls transformations for House X had already been pro­duted. Unlike these, the u:onometric model was a thoroughgoi ng, unified distortion of a complete and fi nalized Housc design. and this is why the S10ry about its beinp made after the protect. was fi nished is of morethan Incidental int ... reJl.

A true transformation of this kind is not exaetly design bct:luse whatever is subjetl to the transform­ation must alre:ldy be tomplete in aU its pans. In .1

transformation only rJauom alter. No ncwekments Cln be introduced or remo\'ed; bits cannot be added or taken Away; nothing Cln be elaborated. The dif· fere nee is easy 10 see. In this insunce the corres­pondence to mathem"ticaltnnsformation is sueh that a simple' formula describes it. For an oblique col· l~st like ~hator the House X model it is: F(x. y,lo) _ (Ix + yl2].ylli.[lo + y/2]).

Pr«:cdenucan be pointed to from ""ithin architec· ture. or perhaps it would be fairer to s:ly fro m the periphery of architecture, none so dose as JU3n Caramuel l obkowitlo'sA reml«1um R C'C(1l yObliqUil of 16711 in whith thcdassical demenlS were subjected to similar tnnsform"tion so 1$ to fit them on to indi ned stairtaSC' walls yet maintain tontinui ty of line. Ackno ..... ledging the si milarity enables us to recogniu also the much greater IOphistiC1tion "nd sc~ of Eistnman's u:onomC'tric model. Car:r.muel·s oblique architl'Clure. however interesting. was con·

AflUSI~

crived ~s a WAy of coping with spt.'Cial c;tSe$, or of 'correcting' perceptual distonions.it.s ~pplications were loc~lized and subordin~te, where;lS the axono­metric model for House X plays more effecti\'ciy v.·ithin the gAp betv.'«n technique and th,· thing to which the technique is applit'd. The dra""ing and itS object (the architecture) arc quite distinct in Can· mud. ~nd the tT.lnsform~tion into the oblique is an entirely tw<>-dimensionaIAffair. ln House X, dr~"'· ing ~nd object are more neuly conflated ~nd the transformation operates in three dimensions.

I do not know why Eisenm~n did not eall it ~ tnnsform~tion. It does not maner that he did not, as. form~lIy speaking, ~ rose by any other n~me will retain identical rel~tionships to ~II other elements in the sem~ntic field, NevenheleS5. given the theme of this anicle. his no t doing so affords a small insight , suggesti\'e nther than conclusive though it may be, into the ksseasi ly <kmonSinble \'~Iue of his ,,'rit ing.

Irri!.lted by his txtical deployment of the fashion· able concept WnlJng, busy descrying the deplonble function of the writing itself in providing obscurity. being all tOO clear About its detrimental cffecl$, it ""ould bc:easy too\'erlook the posili vecomribution contained thtrtin. mainly lx'Cause th.· contribution does not come from tht writing itself n all; it comes from the- zoo inside- the writing. Tht axonome-tric model pro\·idc.-s an instance- whue it h;lS been pos­sible to identify a spe'Cific si milarity between whilt Eisenman ~ys he milkes iIlld ,,·hat he makes, iIlld it is symptomatic that the similari ty W;iS unl'(marked by him. The polygenctic profusion of fOl'(ign thoughts. trrminologies and subjectS surrounding his archi· tecture in his ,,·riting may have been contracted for mtrcenary purposes. Their principall;lSk, once /PI

Jlt/I. is.;lS I h;l\'e insisted. to protect and corroborate the work by fair means or foul. Yet what is it. one may ask. that makes Eisenman recruit so enthusi·

)))})) / ,

, / '

, ,

-l / , , , . , . /1 . . , , . , .

astically o"er such a wide areA? Another ungenerous thought prescnts ilself. but it is nOl ~tisfactory: explanations that e"eryone can ugely nod ~t raTtly arc. One can sec that he is far more anenti\'e to the creatu res in his zoo than would be necessary if all he wanted W:iS to crcate an impression with them.

We hAve bern t:llk ing about the writing. We are now ulkingof the thoughtscagcd up in it. Thoughts, though. arc not always.that e;lSily penned. Often they give their keepers the slip. :lnd once they h.we e:K':l~d they can lead a freertxistence. They do not ha\'e to suppon anything, be responsible- for any· thing. or explain anything. and they do not neces­$.Iri ly luve ~ ckcp impression o n the things they touch. In this liberated but rdat ively po\l:uleS5con. dition they flit in and around Eisenm;m's norm3l1y im pregn~ble architcct urr.

In 5Uch circumsunccs th.·truthful conversion of

thoughts inloobjccuis nOl at iSliue. It rully does not muter whether rumination on topology produces architectural forms that could properly be dc:K"ribcd only .... ith the aid of lopologiul geometry, as would h;tppen if. for insunce. topologiul invariance were to (l'place metric invariance or buildings were to be made .... ith Mobius strips. Klein bottles and projcct· ive planes. rather than rods and plates. thoughts that .... ould understandably frighten rather than inspire most :trehitects. It might only be that topology is the initiator of a train of thought that leads lO .... ards architecture. and as such provides the stimulus for the doing of somt'lhing thai ""ould not otherwise be done. By the time it makes ils mark on architecture this 'something' need not ha\·t anything directly to do .... ith topology. or might invoh'e only some marginal or insignificant aspect of it yet st ill be ... 'on hwhile .

...... , ..... - ,"

C .... n"o C .... nm - Suggnllons /ororrwmmrm"" Sl,l'",_ Ju .. m Ur.m".d l.LWJtmr,rz - Conmhun r"p,r .. l1,jrom ArchllCt'l ur~ rCt'lA y obliqua.. 1611J. ~..,l/.jrom Archllt'ltuta ci,·ilf. /lJl.

"''' I ILlj ,: 71

If in House X th(' l.argely spurious assignment of labels such as topological uili of symmetry. tO~ logical transformat ion .and Mobius strip were over­looked, it would be possible to look instead for the manner in which a train of thought passing through topology might ha\'e pbyed upon the object. When. in one of the numerous u pbnatOry modd s. Eisen· man shows the pulling of a smaller cube: through a luger one as if fro m a distend.lble mass. it could be: said to resemble the differemi~1 topologist 's pr~ cedure o f pull ing 5urf.lCe$ through e.lch othu. It resembles it without be:ing the ~m('. If tM upbn. ~tion wer(' ~11 that mattered. one might juSt as .... ·<>11 say that it is like a sock being turned inside out, as say it is like a partial eversion of a closed surface, thus cbiming p~tronage of modern mathematics. The diagrams that accompany the model to illustrate, step by step. the pulling of a through h. because they are presented as serious l<'gitimization. are a puody o f rigour. The model can nevenheless look as if such an unlikely operation has been performed on it without anything of the kind haying taken place. Indeed, to imagine that it has requires thc suspension o f disbelief thrice o\·u. Th(' nature of the material of which the thing ili made is ini mical to it, so that the orthogonal crysullinecubic form s ha\'e to be thought of as hav. ing ~ through a suitably son, igneous phN. The passage of t ime within w hich the contonion took place has also to be witful1y imagined. In order to in­fcr th ... t ... smaller cube hu been pulled through a brger one. while itSelf being pan of the largu o ne, the :lC!ual physical propen itsof the modd - spatial. temporal, mau:rial- hav(' to be- menully dissolvc-d and reconstituted. A time has to be imaginc-d in which the static is dynamic and the rigid pliable. T houghtS like this form a special class of imaginative fictions. si nce they are utterly impbusible. If one might say o f stories that they must sound as if t hey could be trul.", one might say of thl." commonpllce

T.I"""lnll" 10"" InJIMONt. Dwgr"'" byAII.m &«1NI ... rIIl John Lru,'u,/ro", Scient ilk A me.ic:m, MOlY 1966.

7'

fict ion of movement in u chitecture that it must appeMunrrJI. Much more closcly identified with the stuff o f rulity (buildings and bndSl;:'pcs), :.rchitec· ture c:.n for this \'e ry reason be f.lr more- extreme in its de-n i;,,1 of reality. Onc(' conSl;ious o f the material constitution of the obi«t. once conscious of its being clrdboard. timbl."r . concrete- o r gillS, a morphology of this son is conceivable but impossible-. The im;"gination has to work in :. r<'gio n OIJuide the recognized limitsof the- wo rld we ot:('upy in order to est;"blish this one inlerprt'live thought.

Consider how many there are lik e- it. nOt JUSt in Eise:nman's wo rk and writings but in architecture and l rchitectural critic ism in geneTll: thousands upon thous;"nds. Alw;"ys it is ..... ords that help us bl."lie\·e th;"t st;"tic things mo\·e. And who is to tell. in the ('i rcle of reciprocity betwrcn words lnd objects. whi('h has prio ri ty oyer the OI her! T he wriue-n .... ·ordsof lr('hitectur.al crit icism are- as deeply impli­Coltctf in the forms of archita:ture-:os \'isible ligures MI."

in those of bnguage. This should not be construed :lS lCcc-ding to Eisenm;"n's d~im th;"t h is wo rk is like ... ·rit ing. It is not :.Iikents$, it is:.n inte-rxtion th.1lt is being pointed o ut: l Vllt and essenti;"l tn-ffic bctwC'l."n twO dist inct but inlerdepc:ndenl sl:lles. The impli. cation of fiCtionll mO\'e-me-nt can be sugge-Sled in writing and experiencc-d in buildings. That o ne requires the other does not prove thn one is like the other. We could do witho ut mo rpho logical fictio ns and m;"ke- architmure refer only to things that belo ng in the recognizable wor ld of de-pendable physical quali t ies, but we do not :.nd it does not. 'Pun('lurc:d yo lume', 'compressed planes', 'sc.tuercd fenestration'. ' frozen mO\'emenl', 'inlerpenetrating spa('es', ' agitated surface': it is t he verbs turned inlo adjectives th:.t do it. Perhaps. then. it is true that W I."

tr;"nsport the sense we make o r our own :.('tive par· ti('ip;"tion in the ..... orld into architl"Clure on the b.lC~ of language. Not ice, though. thJt in this new situ· ation it works differenlly. If ..... e are nil I sometimes touched by the ;"n('ienl idea that rocks are animate. we ourselves ;"re- in the grip of a si milar sentiment amplifiw by language when we th ink o f buildings ;as ammartd. In ilS mode-rn fo rm it h.as less to do with the wilful breathing of life into inen objects, more to do wit h a wilful UllrtdllZi1l8 of them. T he halluci· nltio n of a tr.lnscendenul ye t entirdy corporNI world is involved.

T he pull ing of one cube through lnothe-r is typic ... ] of a host o f morpho logical fictions thlt have- gro .... ·n up .Iround cOntempor;"ry :.rchitccture, not le;l5t through th(' influen('e of Eisenman himself. inte­grated in the Ilngu;"ge of (,riticism. they are. for this very reason. in conSl;"nt Wngcr ofbc:coming expl;"n­ations rathe- r than perceptio ns: o f becoming justifi· cations o f the thing ..... ith ..... hich you happen toend up n.ther th;"n propenies engendered by the imagin. ation ronfrontc:d with the thing with whi('h you ha~ pen lOend up.

In the case: of House: Xil the question lrises;as to how much the propcny resides in the house::.od how much in itst'xplanation. This sounds:. dull, intr.lns­ige- n1 quest ion bec;"use it insists on a division that Eisenman cI;"ims is no lo nger peninenl to his work, since the ar('hitccture is also ... ·riting. Is this not ;"lso wh;"t Buthes and Dc:rrida have bec-n td ling us :.bout the rd;"tion betwC'l."n (,riticism and pn.Cti('e, that the

t .... ·o .lrl." bondc-d lnd e\'en indist inguishable? Quite true: though in th is use the quest ion is not o ne of intndependence and bonding, it is one of substi· tution and domination. To uy that the model o f the p.anial1y evenl"<i cube can be derived from topologi­c:.1 reasoning or from conKiousness of topologicli rebtions is nOl to say thlt any si milar Sl."nse (':.n be.­madcof it ... ·ithout the help of words. To what extl."nt is the put ill e\'e-rsion discernible in the House, the­I'xplanltory model, the accompanying drawings, the capt ion :.nd the rl."St o f the text? How is its presence distributed? It could be that the captio n. then the dnwings. then the model subStitu te fo r the propen y whi('h is ton flint in the house to be visibll'. A word c;"n sund in fro nt of the- thing it signifies. casting so dlrk l sh;"dow th.lt only ""ith gren difficulty can the vinual :.bsrn('(' of the thing be: made out . Maybe.­this is a less unusual occurrence than ..... e ..... ould like to bdie\'e.

There is now a c;"tegory of.tn works thll do mlke use of the interxtion between words :.nd picture-s or words and things, the- .... ·ords frequently functioni ng ;as captions do. inviting the obsrrver to rud into things what .... 'ords say. I am thinking of piecl."s by Jenny HoltZl.'r. Tom Phill ips. Laurence Wiener and Jo hn Baldesuri, all of whi('h do eitheror both of the following: they pull writing o ut of its usu ;,,1 more or less invisible state (you k't' through a word wh<-n you rc-xI it. you do nO( norm.:a.lly look at it). conferring on it ;"n unexpec!e-d corporulity (Phillips). and. by either denyi ng the exptCution that the word refers directly to the thing on which it sits (Holtzer) o r m~king t he physical substance of the "" o rd become the thing that it refers to(Wiener). t hey force ;"Iten· t ion away from the normally assumed correspond· ence between capt ion ;"nd image o r the ..... o rld and its ""riut'n description. constructi ng instead ikliberate parodies of ('orroboratio n.

Nothing ('()uld bI." funher from Eisenman's use of ""rit ing ;"nd captions. which is tho roughly corro b­oratiye ~nd which ukes forgn.ntcd the incorpore;"l n~ture of ..... riting. Eisenman's writing is ;" dis tin('t entrrpriS<' referring to the- c:qu.ally dist int'l rnterprise of .Ir('hitcctural design. Any interaction th:.t oc('urs. occursacross the: barrier of theirdifferencc:. Thisdoes not preclude:. generative relation bel""C'I."n them. The reason for the- comj»rison between Eisen· m;"n ;"nd th('sc l rtists is not to imply that he uses ..... ords in an outmoded o r improvident way, but to h ighl ight the impli('it distinction th;"t he m;"kes bet ..... een ..... riting and designing by using wo rds the ..... ;"y he does.

Returning 10 the eumple of the two inter­penetrating ('ubes ;"nd their expbnation: if. in so br as he says these are topological. Eisenman is suggest· ing a way of imagining resembl.lnces to mher things. or of im;"gining mo rpho logi('al fj('t ions within the strict rmilineu fr;"mework of h is uchitecture: or n.isi ng the susceptibility to suggest ion in mhers, he ca.n legitimately cbim th ... t the pointed finger o f the insuuCtor does nO( ntcCSSMily get in the way of ..... h.at it points at . It may be ~ \'ery useful gesture, no t JUSt for tht' observer, who should al ..... ays take any help or instruction from the ;"uthor/designer with;" pinch o f ult, but much mo re so fo rthe ;"uthor/ designer who presents himself (before anyone else) ..... ith a plrlic­ul;"r region of resembbn('e and likeness to explore. a

AAIIU510

p~rt icu I;!.r source of inspir.u ion. Another w~y in which th is is made mlnifest in

House Xla is in the twO torus-like figurt'S at the crown and bUt of the conStruction. ontglass. one 0pUJue, mirror im~gts of t;ICh other. Tht figure is m;l.deof ~cubt from which twodi~gonallyopposite corners have been remo\'ed (notice how tasy it is for the vtrb IVIIO'Vt to intimidate th<' imagination into supplying hiStory and movement to tht: incrt objtn). Anothtr equally compdling way of :!<"ting tht Am<' thing is as ;I. S<'t of jdentic~l L.shaped eleutions rotated 90 degrees, then ISo degrees, round the six f;ICes of e;J.Ch cube (a preoccupation wit h Ls was apparent in Ho uS<' X 2nd conti nut'S in Fin J'Ou T Hou S, though in both nses tht t{feet is far It'Ss coherent than in HouS<' Xla). Classic examplts of ~mbiguity. these Lsun appear to ~dd up to a cube with corners subtncttd from it. o r reduct to thick fr~mts th~t make a ring with a hole through the middlt: a rtt=tifitd torus. Tht torus is ont of the ch4nCttristic figurts of topology, prominent 1llways in introductions to the subject (a doughnut is toflO' logiully <'<Iuivalent to a telCUp. both 2(t toflO' Iogia.lly ('([uivaknt to tht: pUnc1urtd cubes of HouS<' Xia. and all are toruses). There is no n«d that anyone know this in order to appr«iate tht: txtremt vividness of the form, the unusual displacement of tht' axis of bilateral symmetry into a thr«­dimensional oblique, ;and tht' considerablt' ingtnu. ity with which the sh~pt has been made out of (or pushed into) the unregenente. constant cubic geometry of his mt'tric uchit«ture: tht' most un· likely of inurnations.

Prfn£MtlmAn - HOl<g XI ... P.doA/ro. G.lijomrA, J978: Motkl v_from taJtfrom hrlOTlI(lq,)llnd .bow(righr).

Somt' ptaple do not tell you wh;l.t their work means. They offer no explmation of it. All tht:y do is tell how it was they happened to think of doing this or how they hit upon that. Most contemporuy p~inters and sculptors still tllke this line. dtspite the exterm! pressure to legitimize tht:ir work by dTtSllOing

it in a theory in tht' w;l.y that archittcU of note very ofttn fed obliged to do. It is not that painters and sculptOrs an:: more honest and less pm:em ious: there is morc..;l.dv;l.ntage in it than this. It allows them to t'v.lde, to somt' exltnt. tht' intrusive, constricting llut hority of words. Although they an:: visual1ll1.ists. tMrt is noW2y thtycan ktq) thtir work OUt of T2ngt'

of words, any mort' than a writt'r could keep his writing out of range of vision, Since silence is no answ~. they tell aones. Buttht: telling of SU)lit'$con· centralt'S th<' fxu!tit'S on;l. different rangt' of <,vents and circUmst2nCd than dots the framing of a t hcory. In a story it is the f1lScin.lting. the inexpliabk and Iht: hudly credible that count , In a theory that dOt1l il$ )ob tht' inexplicablt' is exp!..intd. tht' fasci nat ing is mM'ginaliud, ;and t hin~ at tht' edgr of credibility;l.1"t' :accounted for or excludtd. To wrap somet hing in storits rather than theory is 10 let words work at its strangeness rather than ils credibili ty. This tOO can becomt' tiresome if tht' words produce an ;l.rtificial ;l.ura of romance (.lnd there 2((' very m;l.ny to whom

/0)11/ &1Jns.,., - HI.lSIl't! AIJ<');ori";(Colorful Stnlfncc Through True) B11,I~ U)t\gog .. .• 1978. CoIc,,/~phorOK"olphson bo;.,J.,WU · x40·.

""nus 10

this comp!;l.int might be made). h can be seen, how. e\'t'r, th.lt ossification .lnd restriction may be more C.lsilya\'erted.

Eisenman's ;l.rti$try is partly auributable !O the defective chu:actt'f of his theort'tiu! writing, which occasion.lUy dcsct'nds into .l lun;!.tic, intelleetu;al cacognphy bursting 9,·ith the energy ofhalf·tnpped thoughts. Eisenm2n changt'S his theorit'S while his ;l.rchit«lure stays the same. There is no question of ossification, since tht' architecture has nt'ver betn in serious danger of development. Tht (apid obsol· escence of the thoughts in tht: writing compe:nsatts for the changelessnm in the architecturt. Under the circumstances there would be no point .lt all in demanding that the uchitecture live up to the writing or that the writing corrtspond to the archi· tMure. re;l.S()n;!.bk as the request may s«m. To make ei ther adaption would be ruinous, because all the feverish activity circling the inert object is not wi thout efftt=t , h is this manic, ftt=k less, intell«tual agitlltion th.lt induces tht flint, subtlt' ;and spell. binding miragt'Sof movement ""ithin.

Would this suggest that, in so (ar as the writing does provide Iheorit's and C"xpl;anations, these h~\'t' alW.:lrys ~n irrelevant? Consider it mother W.ly: .:lrny I«hnique, be it old or new, be it wdding, en;amel· ling. oil p;ainting on C1lnV1lS, architectural dn wing, or the f~briC;l.lion of timber·framed buildings, is already a restrictive pnctice that can be performed only within confints. To by on top of thisMlOtherconfin­ing formation, that of a rcgul;ati\'e theory. is 10 reduce the fidd yet further. It is 10 put ont'st lf under ;I.

doublt' restriction: the limited area prt'scribtd by a theory cutting lCr05S the limited means available in;l. technique. Be(;luse of their inequiv;l.lence, such overlays e;an ne\'erthelcss exert astoundi ng prtsSure al tht' bound;arit'S of techniq1,le, encouraging it to t'xpand in a certain dirtt=lion. In the eighteenth century Laugier's theorttic~l insistence on the pri. ority of the column helptd push the t«hnique o( cbssical masonry construction beyond the aster· tain~blt' limits of subili ty 10 produce some light, exhilMating and quite <bngrrous buildings in exact ly this way.

Mest uchittctural theories are less presumptuou~ lCcounting only for wh;l.t appt;l.fs to be tht' case according tocommon senS<'. Shaped from one set of prc\'ai ling prejudices ;l.nd aimed tow;l.rd ~nother, they arc rHely ~ble to propose much more than

7l

, • HOHW x; I . ,rorrhtlnl<lllOl1, KMmler; 1. IIlmhr1~lIo'" Khn'U Cl; J. nOl'lhrlnxltlon, sdxmt D; 4. ,"",II til'Wr.on, JC~tCI; S. r.<JfrkwIUIPI. KbmrrO; 6. r.<J, r1~\"'on, KlxmtD.

continuity <lind consolidnion. Eistnm~n's employ· ment of the l;!.nguagc modd escapes th.1! fall:. Allc<lS1 il bore lht- prospect of doing so .... ,.hen he ..,.'ulktu· mined to push hisarchit«'lurr 10 the limit in orderlO expoK its Ikep Structure. f in d'Ou T H OH S, a dis-­.lppoiming piece, is a beneficiary of the altem pl .... ·ithout bt-ing pan of it. A proem of exposure rt'pt'.lIcd 100 orlrn b«omcs a rilu:a\ of rrassur:r.ncc. Fm d'OJr T HOH S is nOI, mind you, typicl i of his rC'Cl.'nt work, which relies less on (hI!' rri tcration of the designer's t'sublished moor l nd is becoming morc like othuthingsthat uc being done nOW-J

himing ou reconciliation. The initiating theory, h.nk· ing bl Ck to Chomsky's structural ism, no longi:r possesses the credibility to force !tW,' architt'Cturc: OUt of sh~pe.so that the architt'Clure - an ;Keomplished bet, ~ lit}'le o:\'o:n - is being adapted to the times, whieh is not Vi: ry hard bt"C.lU~ Amcric.ln ltchi· t«lure has ~lready begun to ldapt to EiJi(:nman. my f.lvourite uamplo: of this to: ndo:ncy ~ing :a McDonald's in $;ln Francisco, the intcriorof which. excepting the incon\'enienee of the diagonal, is much like McDonald's everywhere.

Yet did the architecture e\'er take shape' from the theory after the initial realiution that DttpSu'Ucture could ~ identified with :lfchitt'Ctural abstraction? Was it nOl the case thatth ........ ntire- HoU$t' series.liko: a linle uni\'e r~ ~fur its Big Bang, wu tho: disprrs;al of this original idea into more and more aesthetic forms? And. in any C:lSt', lOllS not th is original ido:a less a forming principle than a way of justifying th.' further pursuit of Turagni 's architKlur(' to ~n extremity of denchmC'nt? And. if so, arC' WC' nOl thrown back on the insidious mlnipulations under· taken by an aesthrtic consciousness to lccount for al most twrythl ng t/~ I hcse 5Ch .... mes possess?

Much c;kprnds on ",·hal is reg2rdo:d:iS ~hC'tic, In order to makt sense of such ,I term in thi: House seri .... s lS a ""holC' , l dislinction might beSt be made bt"twe-C'n ,In lO:SlhC'tic consciousness thlt works to consolidate the :acknowledged chuactC'r of tho: archi tC'cture (in this C:lSt' the nnutC' of Eisenmln's own earli .... r work plus th e- lppropriato: lIrray of in· fluences) and those forms of 1ItStho:tic consciousness that work against or ;Kross it, In thC' best of thC' series - House VI. House X. House XI- both lire present in force,

Finally, some use can bt mJde of Fin d'Ou T Hou S, if only for thC' purpose of comparison. It is domi· nlted by a reminisccm formalism deriving from earl i .... r projects by Eisenman, a customized, autl>­graphic historicism thlt must be pre-sent in lny work, What distinguishes Fm d'Ou THou S, ho"'" e\'er. is nOl jU51 thc absence- of but the- 511pprcssion of feature-s th:at cut across th is conserving, homoge-niz· ing, ~thctic tendency, It is. to a considerable- eXlent. a reworking of Hou.se Xla, It is more like its prr­dC'cessor than are :any of the- other houses, But, whC're:ls House Xb is touched by ad\'(~mitious ideas of form (such as the topologiC:l!)that do nOt natu(;},lly btlong. that have no right to bt the-re, and ,."hose pro:sence can only bt appreciated through an imagi native ullrr~J,zjng of the object, as described abo\'e, Fi" d'Ou THou S is not, All ttaCesof foreign mllter ha\'(' ~n compositionally digested, The elevalional Ls ue Slill there.:iS is the bitten cube. but the torus- likl." figure hlS been lost. as indeed h,1\'e

most of the- more potem and singular formal relationships of solid and void, mirrored forms. routed elcments and oblique symmetries in HOUk Xla. The scrambling of these relationships is pm of an tquivocating compositional st rategy - pursued here through the medium of the trlmformations ­..... hereby lny numbtr of relatively ""eall or relati\'dy famil iar relationships can br built up imoa compos­itC', This is one well·kno ..... n Wly of reprt'SC'ming full· ness and complexity, The trouble is tlut it easily cnd~ up be:inga symbol of these qualities inS(e~ of ext"mp­lifyi ng Ihrm. and destroys more than it creates in the process. The richnl'Ss and variety created by breaking down and superimposing originally coherent forms is achieved attht" eXpe'nse of the foreignness in the work, If this is what 're:lding' and 'decomposition'

!E=_._

--- '-'~- -

-. ,', I •

• =-- I -', -.: - ",. ~ ... entai l, as Jeffrey Kipnis "',:ould have us believe, then the result is nOt very edifying, u beSt a sophisticatl'(l plusantness,

On the ot her hand this particular dccomposition (which is eminently compositional) does sho"" up the tru ly remarklble qualities of its progenitor. House Xb. In her penctrating yl'1 apprcciui\'e­:account of House VI. Rosali nd Krauss makes the point thilt, juSl where Elscnman's C'xplici t intention to build formsdi,'ested of COntent is most bl.lunt[r contrlvened. the House lChic\'es its grutl'St distinc· tion: Ihu is. in the stlirc:lSC'S that run a.Slride and ron through the spi ne wall, one inverted and unus;able, the other functioning normally, They unavoidably signify human Uk but play with the disruption of exp«utions ..... ith regard to this. In one sense the point I am making :lboUI House Xb coi ncides with hefSabout House Vl, ln bothasestheobservation is made that Eisenman's l uempt to di" cSlllrchitecture of its superficill mcaning 90'15 moS! rt\'c;aling and effC'Ctive " .. hen something prC\'cnted it from suc· cttding, BUI, whcte:iS she shows how this failurc of intent occurred 115 the fo rmal enterprise be:c:lmc incre-asingly corporeal, as it "" :is forced into USt' and put in confronution with corl\'~ ntionsof occuj»lion Jnd function, I hne shown how il occurs also by counesyof the designer. " 'ho, ('\'en who!n - precisely when - he is nOI pressured to do so. permits adven· titious icku of movem(,nt to insinultc themselves into the sp«'Chkss immobility of lheobjm. They do not disrupt or compromiSt' the- l rchitt'Cture-: they give it In unworldly animlltion Ihl t tlkes the pl.lU" of thc meaning h .... made such C'ffons to e\'iCl all thO$('

RollllI ElI,.lIl$

AA Illf.S lQ

,

- =---_ l'

'f'-==-=- -0 I' II ill

II

II I

~-'-1

,

o

I •

•

Fo I urlhuJ._·'-,," ml·ll"lJrf plan

FOlITlhstagt· ~ . Qnd-trotl plan

J Fo"Tt" IlAgr: -fbird ./roe/plall

, . QUrthJlagt: Roof plan

I =-

I h I

=' 0 ~ II

._-_ _ --o=-__ .:::JD

"

- ~~JI 1 " ~

I r Iii" ~~-Dr D I "

-1',---"

I ~I

----~

•

, . h . S«uon four! ~~. , .

Fourth J/agr: ~Wl)"

" ... ... HWIO

,

-~~- rr1

- ~-L 1_

~J[ -1 - =. -l

) t ______ --.J

l IT""'U ,1 - - --'- '--.

D~ 0

8

,-,-- - -- --,-

---~'lLJ-Tj 1 JL br ']P]I ...

l ~iH' K~ _,_ i= -==L][J " = . ~- -- - 1 I...- Jfu,]lh_!l..

l _____ J .. _ _ _ L ____ ~~

""-u --- - _. --- ---

"

7 Fourth sla8": North ell!'rlalwn

8 Fourth nail": bill elevation

9 rourth srage: Sollih elf!'!lalion

10 Fourth$lage: Wmeiroalion

_.-

11 0- U

,

77

"

"

II A>:anome/rl{ dr~u'm8

O/Ih.t fint $1"8" ill t~processofdlXomJIQsi(/o 'l

11 AUmomelTic dril. u'lng

ofthnerond J/"~ In fix pro«i.S of d«ompoUllOn

/J A:tonomelric drawing

ojlhohirdJIoJ8" in thl! prOC<'$J of d«ompom IOn

" AXQnOmelricdra'lCinll

01 lIN fourth ""8" In Ik procns of rkcomposltlon

flit FILe. 10