Eisenman HouseI 15-17

8/10/2019 Eisenman HouseI 15-17

1/9

eter isenman

House I 9 7

Cardboard Architecture: House I

Peter

D Eisenman

These two a rt ic les by Peter D Eisenman, House I

and House II were f irst dra fted in November of 1969

and Apr il

of

1970, respectively. In bo th cases the y

were redrafted and necessarily condensed for

publica-

t ion in the f irst edi t ion of this book.

In

this edi tion the substance of the ideas remain the

same as in the f ir st pub li ca ti on . The onl y i nten ti on in

the changes which have been made here has been to

clari fy their content.

At present most

buildings

a re burdened by the ir very

description as

museums or count ry houses

with

a weigh t o f cul tu ra l meaning which is here meant to

be neutral ized by the opposit ion of

an

equal ly loaded

term. Cardboard, usual ly a derogatory term in arch i

tectural discussion (as Baroque and Gothic were when

f irst used), is used here del iberate ly as an

ironic

and

pre-emptory symbol for my argument.

Cardboard is used to Quest ion the nature of our per

ception of rea li ty and thus the meanings asc ri bed to

reality. Thus it is not so much a metaphor describing

the forms of the building but rathe r i ts i nten ti on . For

example, models are often made

of

cardboard, so the

term raises the Question

of

the form in re la tion to t he

process of des ign: is thi s a bui ld ing o r i s i t a model?

Cardboard is used to shift the f ocus f rom our eXisting

conception of form in an aesthetic and funct iona l con

text to a consideration

of form

as a mar ki ng or nota

t iona l system. The use of cardboard a ttempts to d is

tinguish an aspect of these forms which are designed

to act as a signal or a message and at t he same time

the representation of them as a message.

Cardboard

is

used to signi fy the resul t

of

the

particular

way of generating and transforming a series of primi-

t ive integar relat ionships into a more complex set of

specific relationships which become the actua l build-

ing. In this sense cardboard i s used to denote the par

ticular deployment

of

columns , walls , and beams as

they define space in a se ri es of thin p lanar, ver t ical

layers. It is no t so much a li ter al r ecogni ti on of the

actual surfaces as cardboardlike and thus insubstan

t ia l but rather

is

meant to s igni fy the vir tua l or implied

layering which is produced by the particular configura-

tion.

In

thi s con text House I and House a re exper imen ts

which attempt to transla te these concepts

into

a pos

sible working method and into a physical environment.

There is often

an

attempt made to rationalize

architecture in terms of its program. In a

paper given at the R.I.B.A. in 1957, Sir

John Summerson represented this posit ion

quite

explicitly

when he attempted to make a

case

for

a

theory of architecture

with such a

programmatic

basis. In essence, Summerson

said the source

of

unity in modern

architec-

t ure is in the soc ial sphere, in

other

words,

in the

architect s

program. But it would seem

that the s itua tion is more

complicated

than

Summerson allowed. For i f the program is

to

sustain such an emphasis, i t shou ld be ab le

to specify

and d is tingu ish what the facts of

a

particular

si tuation are, and except

for

certa in physical laws, facts in a programma

ti c

sense are in reality a series of value

judgements. Much

of

the oeuvre

of

modern

architectural

theory is involved in a basic

dilemma precisely because it has refused to

dist inguish between problems

of

fact and

problems of value. And more speci fical ly ,

because it has refused to recognize prob

lems of form as predicated by anything ex

cept

ideas of social and technological

change or as a

matter f or s ty li st ic

and

aesthetic speculation.

A museum as a program offers very little in

the

way

of specific funct ional

requirements

which can act as either a suggestion for or

limitation to a formal development. This

might account for

the fact

that

many

of

the

best museums are ones

which

have been

created in

buildings originally

designed

for

other purposes. Equal ly, s ince i t is

difficult

to def ine a precise

form

from

the

functional

requirements, the form

of

a museum is often

realized

as

a very ideal ized shape. S ince

very little is imposed on the form of a mu

seum by its funct ion, i ts

form

may be used to

help c lar if y

part of

the problem out lined

above.

The making of form can,

for

instance, be

considered as a problem

of

logical consis

tency; as a consequence of the logical struc

ture

inherent in any formal relat ionship. The

making of form in this sense is more than

the satisfaction

of

functional requirements

and more than the creat ion of aesthet ical ly

p leasing objects, but rather

the

exposition

of a set of formal relat ionships.

House I was an

attempt

to conceive

of

and

understand the physical envi ronment in a

logically

consistent manner, potential ly in

dependent of its function and i ts meaning.

The thesis presented in House I the Baren

holtz Pavilion, is as follows: one way of

producing

an environment which can

accept

or

give a more prec ise and r icher meaning

than at present, is to understand the nature

of the structure of form i tsel f, as opposed to

the relationship of form to function

or of

form to meaning.

House I posits one al ternati ve to existing

conceptions

of spat ial organizat ion . Here

there was an attempt, first, to find ways in

which form and space could be

structured

so

that they would produce a set of formal rela

t ionships wh ich is the resul t of the inheren t

logic

in the forms themselves, and, second,

to control precisely

the

logical relationships

of forms.

There were three steps in this process in

House

I

First, an attempt was made to make

a distinction between those aspects of form

which respond to

programmatic

and tech

nological requirements and those aspects

of

form which relate to a logical s tructure. In

order

to

make this d is tinc tion, an attempt

was made to reduce

or

unload the eXisting

meaning of the forms. Second, a formal

structure

was made f rom these marks in the

actual environment. Third, this formal

struc-

t ure o f

marks was related to

another

formal

structure

of a more abstract and funda

mental nature. The purpose of

this

proce-

dure was to provide an awareness of formal

information latent in any environment which

previously was unavailable to the individual.

One aspect of the fi rs t step was an at tempt

to reduce

or

unload the exist ing meaning of

the forms dictated by function so

that

the

forms could be seen as a series of primitive

marks. This was attempted through a manip

ulation

of

the relationship

of

the color, tex

ture, and shape of the

built

forms. White

forms are used in House I t o shi ft our visual

perception and conception of such forms;

f rom the perception of a real, tangible, white

volumetric architecture to the conception of

an

abstract, colored planar space; f rom the

polemic of

the

white

of the 1920 s to the

neutrality

of cardboard.

The whi te

color

and the flat tex tu re are c loser to an abst ract

p lane than say a natural wood

or

a cut s tone

wal l. A lso the very fact tha t the whi te planes

carry

a

specific

meaning related to a known


2/9

s ty le t he I nt er na ti on al Style) , m ake s them

less likely to t ak e on n ew m ea ni ng . It should

e ve n b e e as ie r t o red uc e their existing mean

ing, as will be seen below, when they are

p la ce d in a d if fe ren t cont ext. To t hi s end,

color

and material will be seen in the argu

ment below to be used in House I as mark-

ing d ev ic es . Tra di ti on al ly , whe n whi te wa s

used,

window mullions

and ha nd ra ils were

painted black, and planes of primary or pastel

c ol ors were introduced

for

aesthetic effect.

In Hou se I white or black p la ne s are used

simply as opposites in a formal structure

whi le g re y or clear g la ss a re c on si de re d as

neutral.

A secon d aspe ct of the ini tia l ma rkin g p ro

cess involved the s tr uct ur al element s - the

c ol um ns a nd b ea ms. The y a pp ea r initially to

b e rat he r c on ve nt io na l p arts

of

a s truc tu ra l

system. However, u pon c lo se r i ns pec ti on

this is fo und n ot to be the case. It is a ct ua lly

n ot p os si bl e t o d et ermi ne how the structure

functions

f rom looking

at the columns and

beams. All

of

t he a pp aren t

structural

appa

ratus - the exposed beams, the fr ee st an d

ing columns - are in fact non-structural.

When this is understood, a first step has

been taken t o unload, al be it in a very

primi-

tive way,

their

structural m ea ni ng . W hi le t he

apparent physical

fact

is the same w he th er

t he y a re l oa d-be arin g

or

not,

their

meaning

has changed becau se t he y are in fact not

l oa d-be arin g, a nd t hu s t he i nt en ti on i mp li ed

in

their

use in a

particular

location m us t n ow

be consider ed in a d if fe re nt way. On ce one

has un der st ood t ha t t hey ar e n ot st ru ct ur al

one must ask what are they? Why are they

whe re t he y a re ? Tak e t he m a wa y, or change

their shape, and w ha t have you got?

It can also be asked, why go to all this trou-

b le? If th e co lu mn s ar e sup pose d t o be non

s tr uc tu ra l, w hy n ot

j us t cu t

them o ff

at

the

to p so th at we kn ow im med ia tel y by t he f act

that they do n ot co nti nue to the ce ilin g t ha t

they ar e n ot co lu mns but m er ely a not ation

for some other purpose? But cutting the

columns

short of

t he c ei li ng w ou ld in

fact

do

t he o pp os it e

of

what is intended. It would

give the column a

further

meaning by ob

viously calling attention to itself as a non

supporting c ol um n, w he re as i t is s up po se d

t o be m er el y on e m ar k or a

primitive

element

in a f orma l s ch em e.

The s ec on d i nt en ti on of t hi s work called for

taking these marks and deploying them in

such a way so as to make a complete

formal

structure

and t o sh ow t ha t th is st ru c-

ture was a primary c on si de ra ti on in t he d e

sign of t he w ho le b ui ld in g. T o f oc us on t hi s,

r eq ui re d a fur ther shi ft in the primary con

ce pt io n of an e nv ir on me nt ; t hi s t im e f ro m

a c on ce rn m er el y f or m ar ki ng e le me nt s a nd

their

meaning to a concern

for

t he ir r ela

tionship in a f or ma l s tr uc tu re . T o force this

shift in Hou se I t he f or ma l s tr uc tu re was in

a sense over-stressed

or

over-articulated so

that it would become a dominant aspect of

t he b ui ld in g. O ne m ea ns t o o ve r-st re ss s uc h

a s truc tu re was t o s ug ge st t wo s im ul ta ne ou s

structures which overlay and interact. These

w er e based on a s im pl e c om bi na ti on of two

p air s of fo rmal ref ere nces: planes and vol

umes, on the one hand; fr on ta l and oblique

relationships, on the other.

The t wo f orma l structures ar e m ar ke d by t he

c ol um ns a nd b eam s. The se a re n ot d ep lo ye d

in a r eg ul ar p at te rn su ch as a columnar grid,

w hi ch in such a c on di ti on could be seen as a

neutral referent, nor are they to be seen as

the residue of such a grid, but rather they

are intentionally placed in an apparently

random order. This intention can be ex

p la in ed in t he f ol lo wi ng way.

In

the fir st in

s ta nc e, t he s pa ce is c on ce iv ed of as a la ye r

ing or pi a id in g cross layering) of planes.

The

rectilinear

columns and beams are

p la ce d s o

that

th ey w ill read as a residue

of

these planes. Conversely, the round

columns

are used to mark the intersections of two

p la ne s, whi ch

might

possibly be read

as

j oi ne d a t t hi s i nt erse ct io n, t hu s f ormi ng v ol

umes if t he c ol um ns were s qu are. The rou nd

c ol um n p re ve nt s t he p os si bl e i nt erpret at io n

of co lu mns as residual corners of vol

umes. In t he s ec on d in st an ce , th e t hr ee c ol

umns a fourth is marked in the floor), be

cause of

their

particular disposition, also

m ar k a di ago na l system. T hey can be i nt er

p re te d in the f ol lo wi ng way. If both pa irs

of

rou nd c ol um ns a nd b ea ms were se en t o sp an

the e ntir e space Fig.

5

t hey w ou ld read,

despite the roundness of the columns, as

pa rt of th e fr on ta l layer ing. By t akin g away

two

columns, a round one in the space and

one a tt ache d to the wall Fig.

6

as we ll

as

t he p or ti on s of the beams connecting to

these

columns,.

an implied diagonal is

created.

Thus the intention was to use the columns

a nd b eam s t o

mark two

systems

without

giv

ing preference to either. Together the count-

e rpo in t of these two formal systems, the

frontal

planar

l ay erin g a nd t he d ia go na l v ol

umetric sh if t, o ve rl ai d and i nt er ac ti ng w it h

o ne a no th er ma ke it more difficult to read a

s in gl e c oh eren t f orma l s ys te m

directly

from

the p hy si ca l fa ct. R at he r t he y r ei nf or ce t he

intention that these marks in

order

to be

u nd er st oo d f ir st r eq ui re d is en ga ge me nt o f

the

two

systems from one another, an ac

t iv it y w hi ch ta ke s p la ce in t he m in d.

Such a marking of formal relationships, in

t he a ct ua l e nv iron me nt , has u su al ly b ee n t he

e xt en t of t he architect s c on ce rn wit h f orma l

systems. Bu t the pr esen t

work

takes one

further

step.

If

we analyze the nature of

meaning in any

specific

c on te xt we r ea liz e

it has two aspects. The first is meaning

w hi ch is iconographic and symbolic and d e

rives fr om t he r ela ti on of the form to some

ref eren ce whi ch is external to it. For ex

ample, the

particular

juxtaposition of sol ids,

c ol um ns , win do ws , a nd rai li ng s in Le Cor

b us ie r s V il la Sa voye is i nt en de d as a

direct

recall of the super-structure of t he m od ern

o ce an lin er s, and w it h i t all t he i mp li ca ti on s

of the sea: discovery, newness, and ulti

mately man s conquest of nature. But un

derlying that level of meaning there is

an ot he r aspect, itself a pot ent ial so urc e of

info rm ation , wh ich co nd it io ns any ico no

graphic inter pretation; it is derived from,

and is in a sense in her ent in the st ru ct ur e

of

th e f or m. F or ex am ple, t he same j ux ta po si

t io n o f s ol id s, voids, and c ol um ns at Poissy

gives

us

cues to entry, sequen ce of move

ment, t he r el at io ns hi p

of

open to closed

sp ace, o f t he c en te r to th e p er im et er , and s o

for th. T his in fo rm at io n can be said t o be th e

product of t he int ern al structure of f or m it -

se lf. W hi le f or ma l r el at io ns hi ps can e xi st in

an e nv iron me nt at a rea l, a ct ua l l ev el , whe re

an

i nd iv id ua l is a wa re of them t hr ou gh his

senses - pe rce pt io n, hear ing,

touching-

t he y can a lso e xi st at a no th er level in w hi ch

though not seen, they can be known. This

s ec on d l ev el is i nh eren t

in

any environment

and is u sed b y an i nd iv id ua l w he th er o r n ot

he is aware

of

it. This se cond level

condi-

tions the way we perceive the first level

by providing a structure for t he v isu al cu es

which exist in the first level. And since it

has t he capacity to be known, we must be

concerned with how t hi s h ap pe ns . I f we m ark

both these levels in the environment they

can be explicitly perceived and understood.

T hi s is t he t hi rd a sp ec t

of

the

work

- a

shift

in focus from an actual

structure

to an im

plied str ucture and to the relationship be

t we en t he t wo .

This second level may be

thought of as a

range of a bs trac t a nd m ore u ni ve rs al f orma l

reg Ul arit ie s whi ch e xi st i n a ny

conception

of


3/9

physi cal space. Thes e f or mal r eg ul ar it ie s

are uni vers al in the sense th at s uc h f or mal

concepts

as

s ol id and voi d, c en tr oi da l and

l inear, p la na r and

volumetric

are

primitive

n ot io ns w hich c an no t be r ed uc ed and w hich

exist in a state of oppo si ti on in any spati al

concepti on. Thi s s econd level i ncl ud es in

addi tion to a set of

irreducible

formal regu

larit ies, the transformations

of

thes e r eg

u la ri ties n ec es sa ry t o

produce

a

specific

envi ronment. T ra ns fo rm at io ns may be d e

scribed by such formal actions as shear,

compression, and rotation, to produce a new

level of formal i nfor mati on in any

specific

p hy sica l e nv ir on me nt . Aga in t he mar king is

used to signal the interaction between these

two levels. The phys ical envi ronment can

then be seen not only in its

functional

and

iconographic dimensions

but

also in its

formal one - as being generated from a

se ries o f a bs tr ac t f or ma l r eg ular it ie s w hich

may be described as a deep structure. These

transformati ons and r egul ar iti es have no

substantial existence

but

are merely a de

scription

of

this second level of formal re

lationships, in

other

words, a possible model

for

an architectural

deep structure.

One means

of

mak in g t he d ee p

structure

in

a

particular

environment

explicit is

to

force

an

individual to experience the environment

as a notational system which has a recogniz

able relationship to a d ee p s tr uc tu re . T his is

attempted in House I in the

following

man

ner. F ir st , t he s er ie s

of

formal relationships

which are marked in the actual space the

parallel layers and diagonal volumes) create

a contrast between actual space and implied

space. This contrast makes one

initially

aware of the presence of another level

of

formal s tr uc tu re . S ec ond, t he

two

sets

of

f or mal n ot at io ns w hich a re discernible one

read as incomplete,

the other

asymmetrical)

b ec au se o ne c an c on ce iv e o f a s ymme tr ic al

and c omplet e

structure

of

formal regulari

ties, are s uper -i mpos ed. These notati ons

whi ch ar e v ar ia ti on s of

the fo rmula B B

a pp ea r in t he a ct ua l e nv ir on me nt in t he f ol

low in g way. T he f ir st o f t he se c or re sp on ds to

the

formula BI I

I

Fig.

3

and the second

to the

formula

A2B1AIB2A2 Fig. 4); the m id

dle terms

BI

I

b eing c ommo n t o b ot h. When

t he y a re o ve rlaid on o ne a no th er , t he u nd er

lying

structure

is seen as compressed, but

when t he y ar e

slipped

apart in the mind,

it

reveals itself to be a simple symmetrical

structure.

The bas is for

creating

this relationship

of

actual

structure

to deep

structure

is quite

p rimitive . It d ep en ds on an initial s hift a lo ng

a d ia go na l t o c re at e

two

implied square vol

umes Figs. 1 and 2 One square may be

seen

as

s hift ed o ut o f t he

other or

vice versa

so that the notations both

for

the plaid

frontal layering and

fo r

the diagonal volumes

c an be seen as d er iv in g f ro m one, mor e b as ic

s ys te m. T he d ia go na l is r ead as a r es olut io n

o f t he

two directions

in

t he p la id , o r t he p la id

is read as the result of the diagonal shift.

Thus the deep structure is revealed only

t hr ou gh an e mb ed de d r elat io ns hip b et we en

two

f or ma l s tr uc tu re s in t he a ct ua l e nv ir on

men t. Alt ho ug h o ne may p er ce iv e t he se t wo

s tr uc tu re s in t he a ct ua l e nv ir on me nt , o ne is

unable to per cei ve the deep s tr uc tu re be

cause

of

i ts e xist en ce in t he envi r on me nt

as

an irregular gestalt. These actual structures

t hu s ha ve a c ommo n r elat io ns hip in a deep

structure

whi ch is not

perceptible

but

which

can be understood after both

structures

have been perceived.

Any physical environment has this second

or

d ee p s tr uc tu ra l lev el, w hich n ot o nly has t he

c ap ac it y t o c on ve y inf or ma tion

but

does so

continually

a t a les s- th an -c on sc io us lev el. I t

e xist s w it ho ut b eing c on sc io us ly d es ig ne d,

and t he re

is

a c on ce pt ua l

capacity

within

eac h i nd iv id ual t o r ec ei ve th is i nf or ma ti on .

Mar king t he de ep

structure

in t he a ct ua l en

vi ronm ent may br ing i t to a more c onsc ious

level. As was sai d above, t he re is no reason

or

meaning intended in the use of this par

ticular

formal strategy. The two overlaid

systems are nei ther good nor bad in them

s elves . T he y ar e int en de d mer ely to exem

p li fy t he logic inherent in any formal

struc-

t ur e, an d t he p ot en tial

capacity of

that logic

to provide an area of new meaning.

In s umma ry , t hr ee s hift s w er e a tt empt ed in

House I Eac h c on ce rn ed an a tt empt t o s ep

ar at e the ac tu al ph ys ic al e nv ir on me nt f ro m

its t radi ti onal rel ati onshi p to f unc ti on and

meaning, to neutralize the influence of these

on t he v ie we r. T he f ir st c on ce rn ed t he

mark-

ing of the elements

of the

actual environ

m ent; t he s ec on d c on ce rn ed t he m ar ki ng of

t he f or ma l

structure

in the ac tual envi ron

ment; the third concerned the marking

of

the

relationship of this formal structure to a deep

structure.

Such a c onc epti on

of

design attempts to

change the

primary

intention of

architectural

f or m f ro m t he

perception of

s pa ce t o u nd er

standi ng the r elati ons hi p of marks in

that

space to what is called here a deep

struc-

ture. The capacity to understand, as op-

po sed to e xp er ie nc e t hi s i nt en ti on doe s no t

d ep en d e nt ir ely on t he o bs er ve r s particular

c ultu ra l b ac kg ro un d, h is s ub je ct iv e p er ce p

tions,

or

his

particular

mood at any given

time, all of which condition his usual ex

perience

of an

actual environment, but rather

it depends on his i nnate c apac it y to under

stand formal structures.

Such a position introduces, as a primary

concern

of

a rc hite ct ur e, t he use o f p hy sica l

form as a marki ng to produce, as it were, a

ne w men ta l ima ge

of an

environment differ

ent from that w hi ch we are ac tua ll y seeing.

T he de ep s tr uc tu re , w he n it is c ombine d w it h

the

perceptible

p hy si ca l r eal ity , has th e p o

tential,

if

it

is structured in

a precise fashion,

t o mak e a va ilab le a ne w level o f inf or ma tion .

The more this

structure

a pp ro xi ma te s a

pur el y form al envi ronment, the less

tradi-

t ional the meaning it possesses, and thus the

cl oser it is to

an

environment that

might

be

a vehicle for such new information.

To do this, form must be fi rst consi der ed to

be p oten ti al ly separabl e fr om its exi sti ng

p er ce pt io n and c on ce pt io n, and sec ond, it

must be considered

as

capable of changing

or

r aising t he lev el of c on sc io us ne ss by p ro

p os in g a critique of the ex is ti ng s it uat io n in

architectu

reo

17


4/9

~ : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : ~ :

__:::::::. . . . . . ...

::::: :. .:

. _

::::._

..

~ m _._...=

.......:

...

I

mmtBffi

I

-

I

,

I I

I'

I I I I

:

I

,

,

,

,

:

I I I I: I I I I I

, I

I'

, I I

', ,

,

I I

,

I I

I

I I 1

,

I I I

:

, :

,

I

I , '

I I I

:

I

:

I

I

H -

: I

,

:

I I

,

I I

:

I ,

Lt -

' I

:

I: ,

o

I :

I

I

I

,

IU )-J

II ~ ~

: :: :::

.:::: ...... :::.:::::: .... :: : I . '.:.

I: iI

:llll

ill 11111111

.

::I I: III

I ;

1III11111

I

I1

1

LLLiI..LLLl1..l.LLU L L L l L J L L L l L L L l ~ 1

ht

.L..L..Lr...L..L..

n t

1

l r ti,

~ : . _ . l ~

011 1Tll1llr

1 ' 1 , ' 1 ' ;::::.

III I :

I

1- - -- -I.L...l..1.L...l..1.L...l..\

. L . L L . L . L . L . L . L ~ + - - t - T t - ' r ' i r + + - - ' - : , . n -

+ ;-r=r; -t


5/9

o

I I III 1III I1II I

[ 0

I

I

I

o

o

I

I I I :

. . . . . , . . . , . . T T ' l . . . , . . . . . . . . , . . - r - T ' i i - , . . , . . ~ , . . , . . I '

i

lnmTlTnTmf=P=t+m=H

=I1t

:

I I

I i

H

~ L l f t ; t-+-t-++-+-t-c:H-i1l_ _

H

11-:- 1 -- Hl

C

o

1

I

o

J_

I I L r-

i

I : rg

I

I I

4 T

I I I

1

I I I

i

I

I

I - i - ; - I

f r

I I

1

-+

i

:

I

I

I

I I I I

I

I

rtt=I+++

i

:l=++ll1lr ::::::::::1-.L..L.Y-

1

_ - L L

I

4I

u

} -1 ~ I u _ _ ; _ ~ _ ~ _ H f c

I

f t i ~ H H f t 1 1 ~ H D

f-t--L


6/9

L

===_11

I

_

Roof Plan

Section


7/9


8/9


9/9

2

. .

.

..

...

: \

i \ \\\

:

\

; ; : ; \ ~ : : : \ \\

/

.

,,,

/

.. ....

' . :

;

\ 1

.,

.

, , .. ,

\,

\

\

\\\

j.//:\/ /

\

, ..

/

, ..

..,

\:::::;:-1 /

i\L

\ : ..

\L

..

....

.

...

22

Documents

Eisenman HouseI 15-17