Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Top of Form
Bottom of Form
Related Links:
Eisenman Architects
Robert Locke
Related Books:
Giuseppe Terragni: Transform
Decompositions, Critiques
Della Pittura
Chora L Works: Jacques Derri
Eisenman
The Other Modernism
Futurist Manifestos
Classical Architecture
The Memoirs of Giorgio De C
Modernism in Italian Architec
The Patron State
The Danteum
The State of Architecture at t
21st Century
Peter Eisenman: "Liberal Views Have Never Built
SHARE THIS FEATURE:
Anything of any Value."
↑ digg
Jul 27, 2004
↑ del.icio.us
An Interview by Robert Locke
↑ facebook
Comments
Peter Eisenman, 70, is one of the founding theorists of
postmodern architecture and a distinguished
practicing architect who will probably be best
remembered for his Monument to the Murdered Jews
of Europe (view images from the Archinect gallery)
currently under construction in Berlin. Thus it was
very surprising to hear what he had to say about the
failures of contemporary architecture one morning at
his firm's offices in an industrial loft in Manhattan's
wholesale antiques district.
Right - exactly.
I believe that when you walk into this place, it's not
going to matter whether you are a Jew or a non-Jew, a
German or a victim: you're going to feel something.
And what I'm interested in is that experience of
feeling something. Not necessarily anything to do
with the Holocaust, but to feel something different
than everyday experience. That was what I was trying
to do. It's not about guilt, it's not about paying back,
it's not about identification, it's not about any of those
things; it's about being. And I'm interested, in a
sense, in the question of being and how we open up
being to very different experiences.
Yes. OK.
and if we are going to go into politics, i'd like to know why he thinks
acceptance for his projects has usually come from the "conservative
right"... maybe it has something to do with his formal studies of classical
buildings? is the message here that he has distilled, proportion, harmony
and recondensed it in new purified form...? i can see that in very few of
his projects... the formalist play is most often a reference to itself, not a
mathematics of the ideal villa game.
it just seems to me the answers are so vague and general... i'd like to read
more about where his current interests lie, and less about his 'i'm the kid
left out of the game' routine. is the theoretical cosmos really so different
from the academia cosmos?
Posted by: aml on Jul 28, 04 | 6:49 pm
"And I have the most rapport with right-leaning political views, because
first of all, liberal views have never built anything of any value, because
they can’t get their act together."
ahh the poetics of bullshit. the best of art and architecture is a response
to the right-wing agenda.
Posted by: b3tadine[sutures] on Jul 29, 04 | 5:53 pm
Eisenman proves again that he'll say or do anything to remain
conroversial. This move is brilliant--now that he's been typecast for
decades as a leftist intellectual radical, he "shocks" us all by switching
sides and playing a football-fan Republican. Whatever he says it's all
calculated so that he remains on the radar (you clicked the cover story,
now didn't you?). He's about as faithful to liberalism as Philip Johnson is to
modernism--i.e. so long as it suits his self-hyping agenda.
Posted by: frankencense on Jul 29, 04 | 6:09 pm
*sniff sniff*
I smell bullshit.
Posted by: oe on Jul 29, 04 | 6:11 pm
Peter Eisenman is a two bit hack with no talent.
I wouldn't let him design my outhouse
Posted by: RqTecT on Jul 29, 04 | 6:11 pm
shit, he sounded like a schoolboy trying to impress an older girl and
almost not getting away with it, if not the content of wat i said, just the
way he said it...very disappointing.
Posted by: bigness on Jul 29, 04 | 8:15 pm
I agree with STARK3D.
The reason that his support comes from the right is due to the fact that
most republicans are idiots.
Posted by: mdler on Jul 29, 04 | 8:27 pm
frankencense is onto something with the Philip Johnson reference, that
name popped into my head as well Though I think Eisenman is less of a
trend-whore than PJ, he's certainly equally as calculating when it comes to
remaining in the public eye. At best, this is Eisenman trying to destabilize
his public perception, ostensibly by shaking its very foundations, and thus
generating a buzz. But I think he really comes off pretty poorly, it all just
seems so trite. I'll bet upon reading the interview, he wishes he could do it
over.
Posted by: Shalak Moore on Jul 29, 04 | 8:50 pm
Aside from hearing a few of my acquintances were inpired by his lecture
at Texas A&M some years ago, it appears to me that a right wing patron
once had not asked him not to reason out a way to circumvent left wing
thought to make it sound more right wing.
Posted by: agarch on Jul 29, 04 | 11:20 pm
It's strange to read the answers of a (certainly) intelligent man that sound
so superficial and dumb. I mean, he positions himself on the right (while
saying hypocritically that he doesn't want to be labelled) because right-
wing politicians have backed him up (is there more to it, or should we
think that that's all you have to do to get Peter on your side, offer him
cookies?)
Then the remark about liberals not getting anything done is obviously a
straight attack, not against the left, but against democracy and the
decision making process in most civilized countries today. He seems to
have a fit of nostalgia towards Speer and Terragni and their environment,
that let them do "pure design" for the sake of the ART of architecture. He
doesn't see how the fussiness and contradictions of today are intertwined
with human rights and the idea of equality.
And the way he says all this... Insinuatingly circling his subjects without
sticking his neck out even once. Shame on you mr. Eisenman.
Posted by: Helsinki on Jul 30, 04 | 2:25 am
no comment, i mean not even worth.....
Posted by: gringodms50 on Jul 30, 04 | 4:48 am
have you seen the ramp house that comes with wedge-shaped shoes?
Posted by: ArchAngel on Jul 30, 04 | 6:16 am
sometimes i think guys like eisenman say this stuff just to stir things up.
like his infamous comment that theory is dead.
liberals built this nation.
Posted by: norm on Jul 30, 04 | 8:15 am
Some flowers in this manure, including this one:
What is architecture's specificity? I'll quote my old friend Aditya and say
it's body and memory.
Body as in the physical material stuff that makes it, memory in being a
reflection of culture - AKA the emotional stuff that makes it.
Its interesting to note that 70% of principals at corporate design firms are
also right leaning...
FYI: Peter can't be that political as he has not contributed to any political
campaign in the last year...
so taking up a side angle: architecture and wealth have always had this
love hate relationship. i guess that is what eisenman is mocking in the
end, the idealist that needs to eat. but there are men that have bypassed
this hurdle [sam mockbee, and i'm gonig to say architecture for humanity
is doing a pretty good job also].
the mocking and double entendres are fun, but don't get us anywhere.
eisenman has avoided any constructive discussion by limiting his
discourse to innuendo.
Posted by: aml on Jul 30, 04 | 10:55 am
The PJ comparison is right on. Werner Seligman use to tell great stories
about Eisenman, from PE's cheerleader/frat boy days....
It's all about positioning himself, not necessarily a bad thing but just too
obvious in this case.
And that business about "...because it appears to be radical, but for them
it isn’t radical so for them......."
Ahhhhh...............what?
Posted by: aldorossi on Jul 30, 04 | 12:09 pm
the flower:
just thought i'd defend a man most of the people on this site - especially
the political debaters can't understand
Posted by: Sir Arthur Braagadocio on Jul 30, 04 | 4:27 pm
but then again does my defense even matter...
Posted by: Sir Arthur Braagadocio on Jul 30, 04 | 4:29 pm
I do not understand why you see him as a nihilist. I personally think the
man is anything but a nihilist...however he is quite clever in seperating
journalistic accounts of himself...from what he himself writes. The article
above is nothing more than an attempt on his part NOT to say anything
(or too much)...and I would understand it coming from a decent writer
(rare are those that build well and write well), if he has anything to say he
would write it himself..in his way. The interview is boring, and Eisenman is
a happy participant in actively making it boring. Anyways, I've always
disliked him (his intellect has a stinky fishy smell about it) ...that bow tie is
so '"pimpin' architecture". I think Philip Johnson, since he was brought in
the discussion, is a much more interesting architect (as opposed to much
more interesting architecture). Eisenman's logic is interesting though
vulgar...no, not perverse, just vulgar. He also looks like an octogenarian
gollum-nerd.
Posted by: uneDITed on Jul 30, 04 | 5:01 pm
i am intertersed in Eisenman's reference to Della Pittura and the need for
a subject to "invent a history for itself" as a theoretical rather than
historical proposition. In many ways one could argue that this is exactly
how the right has a leg up from the left. The right has its positions more
clearly defined--and its history laid out--than the left. There is no need for
position clarification with the today's right. History for the right is a set of
binary oppositions (good/bad)coalescing into a linear historical narrative.
The left, however, seems to always be defining and re-definfing its
positions (sometimes according the right's coordinates). Politics on the left
is constantly reinventing itself (as it should, as Alberti observed painting
should) and writing its own history. This 'invention of history' as a
theoretical proposition weakens the clarity of a the left's platform and a
discernable (even predictable) stance on issues.
" the need for a subject to "invent a history for itself" as a theoretical
rather than historical proposition"
What is theoretical (in his sentence) is the Alberti proposition (in its
interiority...in its exteriority, it is de facto a historical outcome) for that
'invention' and not the actual invention (or its subject..namely its own
history) or your extracurricular 'need'. Eventually, the only thing he said
was that a proposition is theoretical. Really? amazingly perceptive... You
made it a bit clever by endowing the subject (for example, the painted
mule in 15th century Italian paintings of Mary and Joseph) with its own
need...an inherent kantian aesthetic in turmoil behind its own plasticity
(an urgent aesthetic insurrection- a NEED for fuck's sake) ...rather than a
sociological (and therefor necessarily historical) need. He gave you a little
intellectual toy for you to decieve yourself with (it becomes more than a
toy).
Also, in your logic (which I find a tad simplistic) the left could also be said
to have an equally binary opposition setup(the good (not right (i.e left))
and the bad(the right(i.e not left)). This is the natural effect of
antagonistic co-dependency. As such, the 'left' is equally
predictable/unporedictable as is the 'right'...the re-inventions are part of a
constant formula that accomodate a possibility to react to the 'right'. And
on par, the 'right' reacts to the 'left'. In america especially...this kitchifying
of right and left has led to the simplistic seesaw nature of your logic (no
personal offense intended ;-)
Posted by: uneDITed on Jul 30, 04 | 6:10 pm
he still cant build a building that is not a piece of shit. And his memorial in
Berlin, wasnt that done in the garden of Liebskind's museum a few years
before???
Posted by: mdler on Jul 30, 04 | 8:22 pm
Thinking about what architectures these day are really political, I wouldn't
count Peter Eisenman's among them. What I would count are "the great
wall of Israel", US military bases all over the globe, any secured border
checkpoints, architectures like that. Was the USSR the last great political
architecture of the 20th century? Could be. And how does Communist
Chinese architecture stand up these days?
I like Eisenman for often letting me know what he does not know.
Posted by: two on Jul 31, 04 | 7:36 am
I think you meant this eyeball series
Posted by: John Jourden on Jul 31, 04 | 8:03 am
Gosh, John never tells me anything anymore!
Posted by: two on Jul 31, 04 | 8:14 am
a bit off subject, but just to folow through the above post earlier ... As for
my argument that the left is constantly re-defining its position (sometimes
to its detrement), hence rescripting its history, lets take the example of
stem-cell research. The hard right needs not think about the issue at all.
They hear that it involves toying with the origins of human life and
immediately their position is sharply against it. The left, however, seeks a
better understanding of the science to clarify the issue and then defines
its position (therefore its history) on that contemporary understanding.
The right seems to take a more historical position, while the left takes a
more theoretical position. I know it is not necessarily as clear cut as just
that, there are in-betweens and contradictions. But at their foundations,
that is my impression.
Posted by: Mason White on Jul 31, 04 | 10:03 am
well, the right (in the us at least) changed its opinion in an hour as soon as
regan was diagnosed alzaymer...all of a sudden stem cell research was
ok...you're making it sound like the only political side with a clear set of
rules/morals/ideals. you can advocate that most of the times, in western
countries, the right campaigns for the keeping of the status quo (while the
left pushes for reform), or refers back to decades-old values, but that its
mainly because the protests of the 70's destroyed those values, and those
protests where almost completely leftist.
if we're talking about extremes, then its probably the left which tends to
have more historical positions on big issues concerning morals, possibly
connected to the fact that the left's political philosophy is much better
codiified than the one of the right...my two cents.
Posted by: bigness on Jul 31, 04 | 11:29 am
dear uneDITed,
"This eisenman rhetoric is not removed from much of his usual rhetoric
that tries to escape history and meaning (through geometric absolutism or
architectonic connotative exaggerations)..only to crashland on the
neighbouring ground of monstrofied meanings..i.e postmodernism"
there is no 'left' and there is no 'right', render them both historicaly and
presently meaningless in relation to the 'continual unfolding of existence'.
destory everything so that you can re-invent everything. destroy yourself
to become something else. this is the goal of deconstruction - somewhat
of a paradox.
'left' and 'right' are more similar to 'modes of thinking' than 'sets of
systems of thought'. you can not choose a 'mode of thinking' for life,
rather just for a moment in the present-and-now. and to stick with any
moral or ethical set of values is just plane stupid, unless you're insecure
and hate being lost in the desert empty of meaning.
mdler - did libeskind do the garden at the Jewish memorial or did someone
else?
here's a pop quiz question for you 'side pickers': if i made a promise under
one set of morals and then changed my moral 3 years later, and
according to the first set of morals broke that promise, but in the second
set i didn't do anything unusual - did i break a promise? (don't use the
accountability argument, try something else)
Posted by: Sir Arthur Braagadocio on Jul 31, 04 | 1:08 pm
"(through geometric absolutism or architectonic connotative
exaggerations).." <= I said that...so I meant he meant something. He
meant something, so I meant he couldnt be a nihilist.Well...a nihilist as
you use it. Nihilism actually demands an assiduous,affirmative and
imaginative stance. Its lineage is a history of such stances...from anti-
tsarist autocratism through a novelistic tradition ( Dostoevsky and
Tugenev) to a tittilated ethos (Nietzsche-is it better to be swaying at the
top of the reed at the mercy of the wind, or down below..safe,out of
harm's way ..and near blind) and the theatres of
beckett,pirandello,ionesco and the like (when nihilism is finally freed from
a need to always be allegorical (art emphasizing, mimicking, the pains of
life) to become acutely aware of its own artificiality....nihilism becomes a
desperate attempt to prolong life through art).
Q: "But doesn’t saying that art and life are two different things mean
alienating our culture from the people it’s supposed to be the culture
of and lead to a kind of hothouse aestheticism that has nothing to do with
real life?"
Eisenman: "Well, I’m very interested in real life, but that depends on
your definition of “real life.†Who represents real life? I don’t
have any idea who, really. My clients that come to me, they’re not
coerced into coming to me, I don’t have that many, and there’s
not any worry that Peter Eisenman is going to destroy real life. Just like
there’s no worry that Webern or Bartok are going to destroy pop
music, right?"
*****
About his work, Eisenman states "I am looking for ways of conceptualizing
space that will place the subject in a displaced relationship because they
will have no iconographic reference to traditional forms of organization.
That is what I have always been trying to do, to displace the subject, to
oblige the subject to reconceptualize architecture."
eisenman has much more to offer than answers to these silly questions
and even worse - built work!
Posted by: Philip Gentleman on Aug 01, 04 | 5:49 pm
boring
Posted by: satan on Aug 03, 04 | 3:51 am
and with one word, satan halts the thousands and thousands of words
pouring down upon the indifferent shoulders of peter eisenman.
very impressive.
Posted by: joed on Aug 03, 04 | 6:43 pm
i, for the most part, enjoy pete's work; however, as an architecture
student at the university of cincinnati, i have to go to one of his buildings
everyday...the DAAP building. anyway, i was walking out the door of that
building one day talking to some friends. my head was turned so i didn't
see...and i whacked my scull into the corner of a drywall cube that stuck
out from the wall...apparently pete thought it was a good idea to have a
sharp corner sticking out of his wall at exactly 6 feet off the ground. might
want to consider those of us over 5'11 next time pete. at least that corner
is no longer dangerous...seeing how i rounded it off pretty well with my
head.
Posted by: placemj on Aug 30, 04 | 9:51 am
It seems many of you were hoping that P.E. would say something that you
would agree with. Does that mean you are still looking for a leader you
can join in lockstep? Abandon such hope. Caress the dragon.
Posted by: gustav on Sep 22, 04 | 7:17 am
He's not even right-wing, he's just an egomaniac. It's like being at a party
when you're 17, and you want to rile feathers and sound cool, so you lean
against the wall and you look up at the ceiling, and you say, yeah, I want
to be eaten by wolves... or some shit like that, and it's just a joke, but you
think you sound profound. You think you sound tough and interesting, but
everyone's already moving on the next person. Rather than dick around
bobbing and weaving and saying nothing of substance - does this
interview actually have any content? - why doesn't he calm down? Get
over it. He's a conservative. Who cares? Now say something in an
articulate manner, for god's sake. He's like a fat person obsessed with
being fat, when no else gives a shit if you're fat or not. So what if you're
fucking fat? You're not the only person in the universe.
Peter Eisenman is the Kirstie Alley of architecture.