7/27/2019 EDRA04 Eisenman 319 323

1/5

NOTES ON CONCEPTUAL ARCHITECTURE I I APeter D. EisenmanDirectorThe Ins t i tu te for Architecture and Urban Studies8 West 40 Stree tNew York, New York 10018Abstract

5.2

This paper wil l discuss the problems of the t ransposit ion of l inguis t ic analogiesand models to design methods in archi tec ture . Speci f ica l ly , i t wi l l at tempt toshow tha t language and archi tec ture , which seem to be s imilar modes of communicat ion, are in fac t different in one part icular aspect. Because of this differenceth e us e of l inguist ics models as anything more than an heur is t ic device in architectural design becomes suspect . This paper wil l at tempt to isolate tha t aspectof archi tec tura l space which affects communication and meaning in a way which atpresent is not able to be modeled ei ther by t r ad i t ional archi tectural methods-history, aesthet ics , function--nor by new theor ies of meaning. In doing so th ispaper takes a posi t ion agains t the appl icat ion of exist ing l inguis t ic , semiological and communicational models to archi tec ture . Furthermore, i t is proposed thatwe must develop ou r own models more related to th e actual "stuff" of archi tec ture .The following is both a position and an introduction to such development in th econtext of syntact ic or formal concerns.

This paper is intended for two purposes: Fir s t i t is a cr i t ique of exist ing ap proaches to architecture using the idea of language or a design language as abasis . Second i t is an outl ine of my own posi t ion, which has evolved paral lel toth is cr i t ique . Two almost opposite directions in part icular may be seen as antecedent to th e ideas in th is presentat ion. They concern a fundamental question inany architecture of the form-meaning relat ionship. One, more conservative ,wasessent ial ly continuing a t radi t ion of German a rt history developed at th e WarburgIns t i tu te in London. While the people involved were essent ial ly a r t histor ians,their influence on th e archi tec ture of th e 60's through such people as RudolphWittkower and his pupi l , Colin Rowe, in England and America, was no less profound.Another supposedly more innovative direc t ion was concerned with an attempt tostudy on a more methodologically ra t ional basis physical design ( in i t i a l l y manifested in industr ial design) and archi tec ture . The major thrust of the work ofsuch people at ULM as Tomas Maldonado, Abraham Moles and Giu Bonsieppe ca n beseen to be exemplary of this intention. The difference between th e two directions might be summarized as follows: the former group was concerned with ~of meaning--with problems of iconography and symbolism; th e l a t te r group was concerned with problems about the nature of meaning--with such problems as thenature of sign systems in th e physical environment and with th e lack of an agreedupon sign convention between th e form of th e environment and the meaning whichaccrues to i t .

319

7/27/2019 EDRA04 Eisenman 319 323

2/5

320 ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN RESEARCH, VOL. 2Partly because of a desire for rat ional i ty of method and part ly because they wereinvolved in an analogous problem, this l a t t e r group turned to discipl ines outsideof archi tecture and a r t his tory : to l inguist ics and, more speci f ica l ly , to semiology. These external models were thought to provide not only a more r igorousand even more scient i f ic frame of reference, but also , they were t h o ~ g h t to possess character is t ics which were analogous to th e form-meaning relat ionship inarchi tecture .In th e 1960's , most of the European manifestations of the use of l inguist ics andsemiology in an archi tectural context were based on th e work of Ferdinand deSaussure, in par t icular , and more recently on French s tructural ism in general .The appearance of a book such as Meaning in Architecture, while s ignif icant fori t s mere existence at that time and for i t s t i t l e , which indicates th e part icularbias of i t s contributors, is probably more important in that i t was, in a way,a signal to the end of a period which expressed an expl ic i t ser ies of preferencescharacterized primarily in terms of what is excluded from consideration. Fundamental to these preferences was a concern for meaning as opposed to form.While this is obviously an oversimplified and schematic introduction, i t is usefu l in that i t provides a background to th e problem of th e form-meaning relat ionship and to th e proposit ions which wi l l be put forward below. Fundamental to myproposal are the following considerations:1) The elimination of semantic considerations and th e focus on syntact ics ; that

i s , the consideration of formal elements or regular i t ies seen as a potent ia lsystem of marks.

2) The understanding that what is perceived--the par t icular configurations inth e bui l t environment-- is only one aspect of a more complex phenomenon, thatthere exis ts in any environment an underlying structure which ult imately a ffects communication.

Tradit ional ly in archi tecture , considerations of form have played an importantro le . Previously these considerations were basically concerned with aes thet icproblems, with the analysis and the design of specif ic configurations having proportions, size, scale , contras ts of tex ture , color and l ight . Beyond this concernfor th e physical properties of elements there was equally a concern with r e l a t i o ~ships--sequence, in terval , location, etc.--between elements. These concerns arenot aes thet ic but more appropriately syntact ic in that they are concerned withrelat ionships. However, they are syntact ic only in what wi l l be called a surfacestructural sense. For example, a column or an entry facade in i t s e l f may be considered as a formal and thus syntact ic element. A description of a par t icularshape, texture and coloration of a column or a facade would provide us with in formation concerning th e actual physical form, which is only th e surface structure.Equally, th e relat ionship of a column to a wall- - their location, proximity, direct ion, etc.--which provides information of a syntact ic nature is s t i l l informationregarding the specific or surface configuration. Thus, i t can be said that evenwhen architecture was concerned with formal relat ionships, i . e . , syntax, thesewere relat ionships of th e elements or objects themselves, i . e . , shapes, or th e

7/27/2019 EDRA04 Eisenman 319 323

3/5

5. DESIGN LANGUAGES AND METHODS 321

relat ionships between shapes in a specif ic environment--dimension, s ize , scale ,etc . This was th e l imi t of syntax. But th is did not account for another or underlying level--a more complex phenomenon which can be detected in a specificenvironment.3) This underlying structure ca n be described in terms of a se t of condit ions

and a se t of operations which would l ink this underlying structure with th epart icular configuration.

A further difference between my proposit ion and other work being done in syntaxis in th e nature of th e descript ion of this underlying s t ructure . I f we analyzeth e nature of the formal information potent ia l in any specif ic context we ca n seef i rs t , th a t there is informa t ion which is iconographic and symbo l ic and comes pri marily from cul tura l sources which are external to th e environment. This information seems to be the product of a cultural interpre ta t ion of the formal relationships in th e specific context. These exis t at a r ea l , actual level , where anindividual is aware of them through his senses: perception, hearing, touching,etc. But there is another aspect of information affect ing this iconographic interpre ta t ion which seems to be derived from another level of relat ionships . Theseexis t in a more abs t ract sense; they cannot be seen or heard, but they can beknown. In attempting to define the nature of this underlying s t ructure one mayconsider ways in which formal information may be manifest . The f i r s t and mostobvious is in a relationship to what may be called a notat ional order. This orderseems to be a descript ion of ~ formal regular i t ies which may be seen in a specif ic environment. A notation ca n be made from th e actual geometry of any shape.A second way in which formal information is manifest comes not from th e actualgeometry or from pure physics alone, but rather from two things: one, from th eway in which th e individual conceives of space and form and two, from th e part icula r way the underlying structure forms relat ionships in a specif ic configuration.For example, the idea of forms exist ing in a s ta te of shear can be said to be information which derives from comparing two sets of formal relat ionships , an actualcondit ion in re la t ion to some prior condition. A pr ior condition is a descript ionof certa in formal regular i t ies which when conceived of as juxtaposed to producea relat ionship with the actual geometry which cannot be marked yet is implied inth e environment.Again, th is information does not derive solely from th e pure geometry or purephysical facts in th e environment alone but both from ou r capacity to conceiveof these geometries in re la t ion to some prior configuration and from the natureof the actual shapes themselves to suggest this prior configuration. While thereare many possible combinations of formal regular i t ies in an underlying structuraldescript ion and while a l l archi tecture may have such an underlying st ructure , onlysome of these descript ions possess this capacity to be manifest as a prior condit ion and thus to produce formal information.This relat ionship to a prior condit ion also may affect our use of a space. Forexample, because of th e difference between the conception of an actual configurat ion and th e conception of i t s relationship to a prior condition, i t is possibleto conceive of different ways to approach and enter spaces. These ways seem to

7/27/2019 EDRA04 Eisenman 319 323

4/5

322 I ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN RESEARCH, VOL. 2

be influenced by ou r conception of this relationship to a prior condition. Andas was said before, while th is other information may be given a notation, i t doesnot derive from th e physical fact alone but rather from th e capaci ty of the relationship between actual facts and prior conditions to generate or imply otherin terpretat ions, and also from ou r capacity to receive this information. I t ispossible to art iculate this other aspect of th e problem by considering th e capaci ty of th e individual--using, perceiving and moving in space--to receive cer taininformation which is present in that space which is other than notational ( thatis , i t does not derive ei ther from the specific configuration or from th e relat ionship of th e specific configuration to a prior condition); to be able to in ter-pret th i s , and to turn i t into mental constructs . This type of information, whileinvolving th e individual, involves him in his purely conceptual or mental capacityand ha s l i t t le to do with his culture, aesthetic predilections or tas te . Again,this information is not derived from th e actual shape but from th e information in herent in th e relationship between shapes. This second type of information ~ i v e sfrom what we may ca l l a relat ional order.4) The two dif ferent types of relationships can be modeled by what I have calleda dual deep structure.Syntactic information as defined here is not concerned with th e meaning which accrues to elements or actual relationships between elements but rather with therelationship between relationships. I t is not information inherent in th e actualenvironment, but rather i t is information received in ou r mental construct of th erelationship between th e actual environment and a conceptual environment. Theprimary factor in th is type of information is th e act iv i ty of th e underlying levelof formal relationships, previously not brought to any conscious level of formulat ion but no less present . These relationships exis t in what is called here thedeep structure. The syntactic dimension of architecture can be in i t ia l ly conceived of as a dual level structure; i t is a model which we are imposing on th e existing conception of architecture in an attempt to uncover, define and make operativefurther relationships which may be inherent in any specific configuration. Theserelationships, i t wil l be argued, pre-exist in any environment and also in ourcapacity to conceive of them;and, therefore, these relationships provide informat ion to us whether by design or not, or whether we are even conscious of receivingth is information.5) But there is a further problem which a t present cannot be modeled by a dual

deep structure. I t concerns what I wil l ca l l th e vir tual nature of architectural space. While the dialect ic potent ial of actual and vir tual exists ina l l physical phenomena, i t s manifestation in architecture is held to be unique.

There is another level of information which seems to exis t in an y configurationwhich is more di f f icul t to systematize. This touches something in th e nature ofarchi tectural space which might be considered archetypal . That is , th e capaci tyof a certain deployment of form and space to suggest a level of formal informat ion which cannot be understood from a marking of th e actual geometry alone butrather is derived both from th e implications which are spat ial ly inherent in th e?ctual g ~ o m e t r y and from th e capaci ty of th e individual in space to receive thisl.nformatl.on.

7/27/2019 EDRA04 Eisenman 319 323

5/5

5. DESIGN LANGUAGES AND METHODS 323

But th e dual deep s t ructure cannot model th e nature of archi tectural space i t s e l f .Let us for a moment take another approach in an attempt to build such a model.Consider for a moment archi tectural space in relat ion to pain ter ly space and sculptu ra l space in that a l l three are ac t iv i t i es involving physical integers of somekind. In both painting and sculpture there is an inherent dia lec t ic between th eobserver and th e space, which is not i n i t i a l l y present in archi tecture . Whateverrea l space there is in painting and sculpture, the observer is usually outside ofi t ; his re lat ionship to that space ca n be considered vi r tua l rather than actual .Thus, any understanding he has of that space, whether perceptual or mental, wil lalways be in a sense conceptual in tha t he can never experience the actual space.Now in archi tecture a l l experience of th e space is actual , and one cannot have avi r tua l experience per se. Here i s a centra l problem for archi tecture : I t is a l lreal , and our relat ionship to i t is i n i t i a l l y actual . Now i f one posits tha t a l lphysical r ea l i ty ha s inherent in i t a capacity for an opposite or vir tual s tate ,because of th e capacity of certa in spat ia l relat ionships to present a potent ia lcontinuum from actual to vi r tua l , then somehow we must be able to take this factorinto account in any model concerned with the generat ion of archi tectural space,again, because th is d ia lec t ic between actual and vi r tua l may be act ive even i f no tdesigned or consciously interpreted. I t is precisely because the individual ha sth e capacity not only to perceive and actually walk through th e space but to conceive of that space that he wil l receive information which he wil l t ranslate intoconceptions. Therefore, i f an architecture ca n make one more aware of th e actualspace, e .g . , i t s actual height , and an individual might from this awareness havea more precise understanding, e .g . , why i t ' s high, of th e actual space and th einformation--beyond high, e .g . , as a t ransi t ion, sequence, def ini t ion--potent ial lyavai lab le in i t , then th is awareness might be made possible by th e presence of anintent ional vi r tua l s t ructure . In other words, since there is always the possibi l i ty in archi tecture of a vi r tua l experience as well as a real experience, theyboth might be predetermined. However, in architecture as opposed to th e otherplas t ic a r t s this vi r tua l condition must be bui l t into archi tectural space; i tdoes not ex is t a pr io r i . While these qual i t i es remain latent in any environment,they must be modeled in both a surface and deep s t ruc tura l description. The exactnature of that difference in the space, what causes th is dif ference, how i t relatesto a se t of formal regular i t ies in a deep st ructure , and what are the capaci t iesin th e environment in cer ta in juxtapositions to produce this difference is in th enature of work to be developed in th e future. I t is enough here to merely pointto this dif ference.6) This in i t i a l descr ip t ion instead of being considered as a single deep s t ructure is now thought of as a deep dual s t ructure .From these two deep st ructures, each with an internal dual st ructure , i t is hopedthat one ca n create a condition of conceptual and perceptual pari ty through th eacknowledgement of this deep s tructure in th e specif ic environment. The deepstructures wil l be raised to a level of consciousness and therefore contributemore precisely to a potent ia l understanding of the environment. Again th e product ion of this state of parity remains a problem of transformation.