Interesting conversation between Peter Eisenman and Wolf d.Prix on architectural education during a studio presentation. What do yo think?
On a side note, the 92nd Street Y Association is hosting an interesting conversation with Peter Eisenman and Greg Lynn (moderated by Kurt Forster) this Thursday. Entrance is $27 ($10 for students). About the architects:
One of the most influential architects of our time, PETER EISENMAN is known for his pure and sensual designs and his belief that architecture is an autonomous art. Founder of the Institute for Architecture and Urban Studies, and author and co-author of numerous books and articles, he works from his New York-based Eisenman Architects. GREG LYNN uses computer-aided design to create sculptural, biomorphic structures. His interest in digital fabrication, calculus and what he terms “blob architecture” have put the architect-theorist at the forefront of architectural discourse. Influential theorist KURT FORSTER is the founder of the Getty Research Center and the Canadian Center for Architecture in Montreal. He has published widely and has curated groundbreaking shows, such as those on Herzog & de Meuron in Montreal and on Schinkel in Chicago.
Thursday, Oct 23, 8:15 pm
92nd Street Y, 1395 Lexington Ave at 92nd Street
More info at: www.92Y.org or 212.415.5500
this guy is so stupid. He thinks he’ god or semething…
They both have a point,
I think the truth is somewhere in between
lecture of the banal:
-if you put a monkey infront of a typewriter, its never going to produce litterature.
lecture of cliché :
-Once you throw them into the water, they learn techniques.
lecture on the grown up still underexposed genius:
-I wondered where the camera where.
one of the reasons i left architecture school. so much ego and talking in circles and trying to make things so much larger than they are. blah.
Wow, I feel bad for the student. Worst review ever. They just assumed she didn’t know who Palladio was.
And Hedgy’s right. It’s sort of true. Some skills just have to come naturally and can’t be taught. But isn’t that the case with everything?
I find that there is a similar issue in Landscape Architecture, which I am studying right now. The approach taken is more of the “throw you off the deep end” with the intent that the knowledge fed over the course of four years will eventually form the basis by which we can support our design. The only issue is there is such a strong focus on actual production (creation of work) that the theory behind design suffers.
Even though I personally wish that there was more classical or theory-based training, the downfall with that is that it is easy to get bogged down in theory and to lose sight of where it all fits in, especially if the student is withheld, to continue the swimming analogy, to test the waters themselves.
Shortened response: I agree with both Hedgy and Stephen. The question is where the balance lies between the two, because individually they’re not adequate.
And as a post-script, I don’t think that Peter is being arrogant or egotistical. There is a strong theoretical and historical background to architecture that it is wasteful to ignore it. I think that’s the point he’s trying to get across.
wow, this really bothered me. I have never liked eisenman’s work before because I think much of his built work is a failure in the real world, but now I just hate the man because this was probably the rudest thing he could do and should never be invited to a critic again because he has nothing of value to say.
wow! the way how he doesn’t talk directly to student is arrogant, snobbish and elitist… I do like his buildings though :)
I don’t think an architect should know the difference between Paladio and Borromini… Its academic cliché…
Most important thant this is to design at least “simple buildings that works”… If an architect could do this, is GREAT… After this… if he could develop its form of interacting with the environment… its perfect!…
Its like a professor once said… In the city, all buildings should at least “Talk” to each other but if you design one that “Talks and Sings” its even better…
this takes me back – to much the same arrogance and rudeness I experienced as a student – 12 – 15 years ago – interesting topic still!
what if you put a donkey infront of a tifighter?
That’s what architecture school is all about- getting absolutely decimated by a master of architecture. It’s not like the real world is any nicer towards architects and their designs.
Even if you don’t like his architecture or his method, he’s still better than you.
If you can’t take the heat, get off the pan.
oh charlie anyone who goes through architecture school deals with someone like this, I know I have several times so far. The key to it is to know that regardless of who the person is, it is still only an opinion and in the end who really cares about someone else’s opinion.
My favorite example was during my first year when I had one person tell me one thing, then the next one came along and told me the complete opposite.
What bothered me most about eisenman in this critic was how he wished the student to be told what architecture is. Wolf d.Prix made a valid point, it is about letting them discover what architecture is, not telling them because how are we to become individual thinkers and designers if we spend our entire time being told what to do in school. I always turn away from teachers that try to force me to do things their way because who is to say they are right.
Maybe they should ask the student. What a dick. This isn’t interesting.
I have a friend that always tells me that he started feeling free to design only when he started working…
With teachers like Eisenman I understand why!
I saw this video a few months back. I think it’s critical to separate what he said from the manner that he said it. He was a a complete jerk in the way he made those comments (not speaking to the student directly, discussing her shortcomings as if she wasn’t there, crossing the line of critiquing her as a person rather then critiquing her work, etc.). However, under the circumstances we’re in today, with the architectural trends that are emerging, I feel the points he made were valid. The truly great buildings (the ones we aspire for in architecture schools, otherwise what’s the point?)are always more than just fulfilling a function or generating interesting forms or cladding system. Personally I believe this is where all the “academic cliches” come in. For Paladio and Borromini, architecture was more than a trade, more than a building that works. Let’s hope it’s still true.
(As to the question of being force-fed or not, I think we should be able to decipher the information we’re given. If they are helpful, great, if not, ignore it. I don’t believe the professors have the ability to what ultimately shape our minds.)
That ‘underexposed genius’ is Jeff Kipnis. It’s hard to believe that he was able to keep quite through that conversation up to that point, as he is usually very vocal about his opinion.
I must agree however, that his comment was the most insightful.
this is 5 years old but i still feel the historic moment where this sudden conversation was raised. it adresses this basic almost philosophical question how we work, perceive and project and if fundemental knowledge in its basic sense is necessary element for lets say “production”. i think peter eisenman is wrong, i think its not necessary for the production itself, even i belive in the potential of naivness!!,…for the sake of something new to emerge…on the other hand someone without this knowledge will never be able to participate and evaluate the work,…its a pity they didnt really arrive at this point.
Interesting. How did Palladio manage to design buildings, having never heard of Peter Eisenmann?
A friend of mine recently started an architecture degree in his late thirties, having been passionate about architecture all his life but never studied it formally. He finds the opposite problem; he’s so familiar with ‘the great works of architecture’ to know whether he’s ever creating something new himself…
Ok Peter, you say its a simple lesson of how a building hits the ground, how you enter a building- how about that for a start? Take Wolf’s advice, talk to the student. Its your job. At least try. It is fairly clear that it is not a “simple lesson” about these things, and maybe that is the issue. There is no universal right and wrong in architecture- only design intent and interpretation. If the work has no “intent” then call a spade a spade- but if we expect a student to have full knowledge of “how to make architecture” (whatever the hell that is) then we can never expect them to make anything at all. What the hell does a critic expect to see at a review? Perfect works of architecture? Students learn by doing, and primarily by making mistakes. As David Pye once said, “If you are not prepared to make mistakes, be prepared to not make anything at all.”
Eisenman seems extremely self-conscious and even childish.
I’m guessing it’s self-consciousness that’s leading to the little Napoleonesque bully tactics, it usually is.
He didn’t even really think through how flimsy the point he was trying to make was before vomiting it all over everyone. Wolf shut him down with his 8 year old.
It was sort of just sad to see how shallow some of Eisenman’s thinking is and the childish way he tries to accommodate for it.
Maybe that’s why nobody really pays much attention to him anymore, they finally saw through his act.