Peter Eisenman during 10/28’s Formal Analysis Lecture finally pointed out the elephant in the room about contemporary Architectural discourse:

That there exists a major dialectic, the Rational vs the Phenomenological.

 

Peter proceeds to frame his work and his pedagogy against the other Peter. Peter Zumthor. 

 

The two Peters represent the two poles of the dialectical debate of Rationality vs Phenomenology. Framed within the context of the class Formal Analysis, Eisenman goes on to explain the conception of the Rational school of thought as following a long lineage of Architects and theorists dating back to the Humanists who are primarily concerned about the conceptual ideas of space, as opposed to those who are concerned about the state of being within space. This rational and logical method of thought is exemplified in much of Eisenman’s work which deals with the syntactic nature of architectonics; space, following this way of thinking, becomes an autonomous entity that is sculpted, shaped through rigorous studies on transformations. Space is understood as an self referential object void of any social, historical, political, experiential  context. His works, like what he teaches in formal analysis, should be understood AS IS. 

 

However, Architectural discourse today in academia is dominated by what Eisenman calls the Phenomenological. This can be understood as “the real and the everyday.” This schism began in the 1960’s with the rise of the Avant garde groups like the situationists, and Team X who began to take an interest in a more grassroot version of the built environment. These ideas eventually made their way into academia and in my opinion have evolved into something completely different (whole other can of worms). Nevertheless, the Phenomenological, unlike the rational, deals with the concrete real world situations of everyday life. The emphasis on social, environmental, political and experiential context, leads to an emotional and subjective approach to architecture. 

 

I think the reason that the Rational is slowly dying out is because it is cold and hard, it doesn’t deal with the human-ness in architecture. Under the current political and societal context, in a world so polarized and devoid of empathy, the jargon filled, academic approach of the Rational sits like a steel porcupine in the stream of architectural discourse. Unapproachable for its cold harsh stoicism for a generation of Architects that grew up scarred and tender from a world still trying to reconcile with the lingering atrocities of our shared history. The Phenomenological reminds us of the universal human conditions, we are inevitably subject to everyday, that get left behind in our relentless pursuit of an abstract, “objective” intellectual truth.  

 

So here we are again, at the crossroads of a charged dialectical debate. But is it really necessary for us to frame the two as opposing ethical imperatives? Is there not space in the discipline for both to exist in a synergistic manner? 

 

I think good design cannot exist without the principles of design championed by the rational nor the virtues of empathy underlying the phenomenological. 

 

An Architecture for architects sake, reminds us that there is still a fundamental discipline that underlies Architecture; without it the phenomenological can be led astray. 

 

The rootedness and a true understanding of the everyday grounds us to humanity; without it the rational becomes the disconnected ivory tower. 

 

The path then seems clear now. It should be our goal to pursue a mode of architectural production that truly begins to synthesize the two schools of thought. Only then will we be able to continue engaging in the discourse in a critical yet grounded manner. 

 

To strive for an architecture that reads somewhere in between prose and poetry.   

​

- T 

​

11/5/2022