e
Eisenman advocates that once a
sign gets repeated, then the
reality starts to represent its
own dead so there is no
difference between reality and
representation. There is only
fiction.
Fragmentation of the forms can
be evaluated as fragmentation
of the time. In other words,
“signified repetitive architectural
object” should be timeless; no
beginning point, no historical
starting point and no direction.
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/520095456940993830/
There are no identifiable
objects; they are seem like
“repetitions” in the drawings so
there is
a
figure-ground
relationship which makes us
realize that the site is signifier
and the blocks are signified. In
fact, the drawing itself is the
signifier and the presence of
absence of the blocks are
signified. Therefore, this makes
the blocks detached from its
context.
http://mariacosentino.altervista.org/terzo%20ciclo.html
Cannaregio Project
http://www.archdaily.com/429925/eisenman-sevolution-architecture-syntax-and-new-subjectivity/
PETER EISENMAN
Page | 6
However, it does not mean that
Eisenman does not care about
history; instead, he takes
«traces» from the history to
realize his projects.
__________________________
Eisenman, Peter. The End of the
Classical: The End of the
Beginning, the End of the End”,
pp. 522-539, in K. Michael Hays
(ed.) Architecture Theory Since
1968.
BEYOND ARCHITECTURE | SUMMER 2015 | ISSUE 1