Sorted by date | |||
page168from Building Ideas
and,
with that, the bracketing off of the individual subject, in favour of a notion
of an intersubjective architectural system of signification that, like
language, pre-dates any individual and is much less his or her product than he
or she is the product of it.25
Hence
the difficulty for the outsider in interpreting Eisenman’s code, as the
language is inevitably internal to the discipline. By the same token, as the
philosopher Andrew Benjamin has pointed out,26 this notion of pre-existing “impersonal”
structures is a key component of the idea of tradition. By actively engaging
with the very history of the discipline at this deeper and most universal of
levels, Eisenman is potentially producing a more meaningful kind of discourse,
based as it is on architecture’s fundamental components.
It
is here where prostructuralism, in its reassessment of these ideas, intersects
with deconstruction in terms of its engagement with tradition. As Eisenman’s
architecture begins to show, in its abstract formal language, there is still much
to be gained from an understanding of “deep structures” of form. This theme of
underlying forces and how they influene our understanding will resurface again
in Chapter 5 and this book’s conclusion – firstly as a component of the political
analysis of buildings and finally as part of the general field of
interpretation.
Suggestions for further reading
|
|||
|
|||
|