Conversa Entre Peter Eisennmann e Richard Serra

7/23/2019 Conversa Entre Peter Eisennmann e Richard Serra

1/9

Conversa entre Peter Eisenman e Richard Serra (1983):The firstpublished in Skyline (New York, April 1983): 14-1!

"#T#$ #%N'AN: %n the pst, fiurl s*ulpture-the fiure on the

pedestl- ws *on*erned bsi*ll+ with the enin inherent in therepresenttion of the fiure in the obe*t! 'odernist s*ulpture intended to

brek w+ fro fiurtion or, let us s+, representtion in ters of

fiurtion. n+ representtion in odernist s*ulpture supposedl+ represented

s*ulpture itself! You s+ tht wht +ou ttept to do is to brin forth

s*ulpturl intentions! %s this the representtion of s*ulpturl intentions/

$%0A$2 $$A: The biest brek in the histor+ of s*ulpture in the

twentieth *entur+ o**urred when the pedestl ws reoed! The histori*l

*on*ept of pl*in s*ulpture on pedestl estblished seprtion of the

obe*t fro the behiorl sp*e of the iewer! "edestli5ed s*ulptureinribl+ trnsfers the effe*t of power b+ subutin the iewer to the

ideli5ed, eorili5ed, or euloi5ed thee! The need r*hite*ts feel tod+

to repress the histor+ of s*ulpture sin*e $odin is bsed upon their desire to

represent 6uestionble s+boli* lues under the uise of 6uestionble

hunis! The f*t of the tter is tht s+boli* lues hebe*oe

s+non+ous with dertiseents: witness 'i*hel 7res "ortlndi loo

for the "ortlnd uildin or ohnson;urees 7olden o+ for the ATpression of

edio*re de*or, both in publi* *enters nd prite interiors! &o*il

relen*e, hunisti* lues, re the reinsttedbu55words, the new

interntionl shti*k !!!

The *redo is tht r*hite*ture shll stbili5e the sttus 6uo b+ ppelin to

plurlis: ?ets de*ide tht 0hintown needs new pod nd 0entrl "rk

nother e6uestrin rider! #>ploittion nd rketin strte+ re prote*ted

under populist ubrell! 2e*ide wht the people need nd ke the

beliee in +our definition of their needs! %snt 0hrles 'oores "i55 dltliin New =rlens, for instn*e, little *ondes*endin/

=ne reson r*hite*ts *onsue nd use trditionl s*ulpture is to *ontrol nd

doesti*i5e rt! Ar*hite*ts re openl+ re*tionr+ in their dpttion of

wtered-down rtisti* *onentions! Their *ontinul isuse of rt s

ornenttion, de*ortion, nd rnish denies the inentions of the pst!

'u*h of wht purports to be new is in f*t deritie pproprition: The

1


2/9

new 5iptone hs repl*ed rt s ppli6u@! hen s*ulpture ndpintin rel+

on their internl ne*essities nd otitions, the+ he thepotentil to lter

the *onstru*tion, fun*tion, nd enin of r*hite*ture! At lest ?e

0orbusier understood this (see his letter to Bi*tor Nekrso, CD 2e*eber

193C, in Oppositions C3 E1981F,p! 133)! As soon s rt is for*ed orpersuded to sere lien lues it *eses to sere its own! To deprie rt of

its uselessness is to ke other thn rt!

"#: ut to s+ tht r*hite*ture *nnotput forwrd its own internl ne*essit+

outside of either use or the isuse of rtisti* *onention is, % think, nrrow

iew of r*hite*ture tht presents the possibilit+ of the reli5tion of its own

internl ne*essit+ pre*isel+ be*use in r*hite*ture the lutintion of prts

su*h s roos nd *orridors nd the d*en*ies of use nd shelter re

ne*essr+ eleents! These ne*essities, which do not e>ist in s*ulpture, re

wht set + site! To e, the *hllene of site is to oer*oe theliittions inherent in pilinprts toether **ordin to use, nd to produ*e

n internl ne*essit+ tht is outside of use! oth s*ulpture nd r*hite*ture

ttept to displ+ their internl ne*essit+: how one *hiees this in s*ulpture

nd r*hite*ture is er+ different thouh! This is wh+ % n r*hite*t nd

not s*ulptor!

$,&: ht % wonder bout r*hite*ture is whether people red the

sinifi*n*e of its internl stru*tureperceptually or haptically,

ph+si*ll+!

"#: % donGt understnd +our *on*ern oer whether or not people e>perien*e

r*hite*ture hpti*ll+, espe*ill+ sin*e +ou he des*ribed the different

re*tions of pedestrins nd driers to +our St. John's Rotary Arc (198D)indowntown 'nhttn! h+ *nt +ou llow r*hite*ture the se

differentition in ters of the iewers understndin/

$&: %n nArtforum te>t we stted tht the iewer is fi*tion! si*ll+this is my response to + s*ulpture! % know tht there is bsolutel+ no

udien*e for s*ulpture, s there is none for poetr+ nd e>perientl fil!

There is, howeer, bi udien*e for produ*ts tht ie people wht the+

wnt nd supposedl+ needbut not ore thn the+ understnd!

'rketin is bsed on thispreise!

%n ters of r*hite*ture riht now, lot of people he need to build nd

lot of *lients re *on*erned with whts *onsidered relent! This *retes

2


3/9

sitution in whi*hboth *lient nd r*hite*t re*eie *riti*is nd di*e on

how to sere! &in*e there is no udien*e for s*ulpture or poetr+, no one

dends tht the+ resist nipultion fro the outside! =n the *ontrr+, the

ore onebetr+s ones lnue to *oer*il interests, the reter the

possibilit+ tht those in uthorit+ will rewrd ones efforts! Ar*hite*ts he

ustif+in phrses for thisbehior! The+ *ll it Hbein pproprite or

*oproisin! hen $obert Benturi s p+lons for Iederl Trinle in

shinton, 2!0!, were *riti*i5ed for notbein s+boli* enouh, he

returned the ne>t d+ with the Aeri*n fl top e*hp+lon! This is the

kind of self-ustif+in prti* *oproise % tlkin bout!

"#: You he sid tht +our House of Cards proe*t (19J9) is n e>pleof internli5ed ne*essit+ in s*ulpture, nd +et it does ke etphori*l

llusion to soethin er+ frile, lost self-*riti*l! Thephrse Hhouse of

*rds is trditionll+ used to ipl+ netie ide!My firstproe*ts were *lled houses of *rds pre*isel+ be*use the+ wereuto*riti*l! s the self-*riti*l ide intentionl on +our prt/

$&: No, title of the pie*e is One-Ton rop. % wrote ouse of 0rdsK inprentheses! %n + work t the tie, % hd been proppin led eleents

inst the wll! #en in those wll-props, it ws es+ to understnd tht the

how ws definin the wht! ut thesepie*es were still relted to the

pi*toril plne of the wll! hen % de*ided tobuild freestndin work

usin the se prin*iple of point lod nd *opression, % wnted to define sp*e, to hold sp*e!

"#: Then the space nd not the wllbe*oes n iplied rture - netie substn*e! Arture is usull+ thouht of s solid, but it *ouldbe

oid!

$&: % wouldnt s+ the sp*e is the rture! There neer hsbeen n

rture! Arture ndpedestl re old solutions to old probles!

"#: %n the House of Cards ws it +our intention to present the obe*t inprocess, s opposed to hin the obe*t represent pro*ess, s is donein wht is *oonl+ known s pro*ess rt/

$&: As % sid, % ws interested in the how definin the wht! % do not

beliee in the +stifi*tion of the *retie pro*ess! % wouldust s soon he

3


4/9

the work inoled ilble to n+ones inspe*tion s prt of the *ontent!

Not tht it is the *ontent,but tht it would be dis*ernible to n+one wntinto del with tht spe*t of + work!

"#: The ide of the obe*t in pro*ess ws not prt of the intention/

$&: % wouldnt *ll these works obe*ts in pro*ess be*use % dont think of

the works theseles sperforin! Althouh when +ou use led, it does

he hih order of entrop+! =biousl+ its not oin to lst, nd is oin to

defle*t! Thts ll iplied! % ore interested in the ipli*tion of *ollpse

thn in the *tul f*t of it! You *nbuild stru*ture under *opression tht

iplies *ollpse nd ipernen*e nd +et in its ere e>isten*e denies this!

ht % find interestin bout the House of Cards is tht s its for*es tendtowrd e6uilibriu, weiht is neted! hen soethin is trul+bln*ed, it

be*oes weihtless!LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL

L

$&: % use rit+ s buildin prin*iple! % notprti*ulrl+ interested in

dise6uilibriu!

"#: ut for +ou rit+ lso hs forl oertones of *onention!

$&: No! 7rit+ hs lw+sbeen proble in s*ulpture! ow tht

proble is resoled is prt of n+ definition of kin s*ulpture!

"#: Ain oin b*k to the House of Cards, +ou rue tht pi*toril

illusion isbein e>puned, nd +et the notion of iplosion nd *ollpse isitself n llusion!

$&: Allusion is different fro illusion! %f soethin hs the potentil to

de*+, tht *nbe llusion! &ithsons !uried "oodshed (19D)! nd itspotentil to *ollpse is n e>ple of n llusion! &%T# lters &ithson s

*on*ept fro one of llusion to one of illusion!

"#: % would think &%T# lters &ithsons *on*ept fro illusion to soe-

thin er+ literl! %n tlkin bout lre-s*le s*ulptures other thn those of

&ithson-those of Nou*hi or 0lder, for e>ple-+ou s+ tht the+ rein

little ore thn odel enlreents! Thus the lre s*le in their work isrbitrr+! Are +ou suestin tht inherent in s*ulpturl

*on*epts there is notion of s*le spe*ifi*it+ tht is not nthropoorphi*,

not relted to n, but relted to the intrinsi* bein of the s*ulpture/

4


5/9

$&: % dont think its relted to the intrinsi*bein of s*ulpture! % think its

relted to site nd *onte>t! hether soethin is lre or sll hs nothin

to do with s*le! ?re or sll hs to do with si5e! &*le dels not onl+

with the interreltionship of the prts of s*ulpturebut lso, ore

iportntl+, with the s*ulptures reltionship to its *onte>t! The *onte>t

lw+s hs its boundr+, nd it is in reltion to thtboundr+ tht s*le

be*oes the issue! hen % tlk bout 0lders ndNou*his wht %

s+in is tht those re studio-de pie*es! %n the studio the+ iht he

s*le! To tke those s*ulptures out of the studio nd site- dust the is

*on*eptull+ different fro buildin on site, where s*le reltionships re

deterinedb+ the nture nd definition of the *onte>t! You *nt build

work in one *onte>t, indis*riintel+ pl*e it in n- other, nd e>pe*t the

s*le reltion to rein! &*le is dependent on *onte>t! "ortble obe*ts

oed fro one pl*e to nother ost often fil for this reson! enr+

'oores work is the ost lrin e>ple of this site-dusted foll+! An irondeer on theproerbil front lwn hs ore *onte>tul sinifi*n*e!

Ar*hite*ts suffer fro the se studio s+ndroe! The+ work out of their

offi*es, terr*e the lnds*pe, nd pl*e their buildins into the *red site!

As result the studio-desined then site-dusted buildins look like blown-

up *rdbord odels! There re e>*eptions: the work of ?e 0orbusier,

riht, Mhn, 7ehr+ !!!

"#: You wnt r*hite*ture tobe neutrlb*kround! hen r*hite*ture*oes off the wll nd off thepedestl, +ou see to wnt it to rein s

dis*rete obe*t, to intin its neutrlit+! hen r*hite*turebe*oes both

fiurl nd *onte>tul, it worries +ou be*use it lees the s*ulptor with

little roo to operte!

You s+ tht r*hite*ts-nd spe*ifi*ll+ $obert Benturi-*li to be delin

with *onte>t, +et re neer *riti*l of it! %n other words, their site-spe*ifi*

r*hite*ture is sipl+ obe*ts tht fit into the site or ttept to fit into the

site! This is wht in r*hite*ture is *lled *onte>tulis! % see differen*e

between wht +ou en b+ site-spe*ifi* in +our work nd wht Benturi or

the *onte>tulists enb+ site-spe*ifi* in their r*hite*ture!

$&: ht the+ *ll *onte>tulis % *ll ffirtion in the uise of so*il

ustifi*tion! Ior *onte>tulists, tobuild site-spe*ifi* ens to nl+5e the

*onte>t nd the *ontent of the indienous *ulturl sitution, then to *on*lude

tht whts needed is to intin the sttus 6uo! Thts how the+ seek

5


6/9

enin! The+ ie ret del of priorit+ to the person who lid down the

first ro*k s well s the lst person who put up sinbord!

"#: And the nostli for tht

$&: Nostli, nd the willinness to uent the e>istin lnue! %n +work % nl+5e the site nd deterine to redefine it in ters of s*ulpture,

not in ters of the e>istin ph+siono+! % he no need to uente>istin *onte>tul lnues! % not interested in ffirtion!

"#: ut +ou re lso not interested in netion!

$&:No! % interested in s*ulpture. site-spe*ifi* s*ulpture!

"#: There *ouldbe site-spe*ifi* r*hite*ture tht is *riti*l, tht ttepts

soethin other thn n ffirtion of the f*t tht eer+thin pree>istinon the site is ood! "irnesis re*retions nd "lldios redrwins were

inentions nd not so u*h *on*erned with wht hd *tull+ been on site!

ht interests e in +our work is tht it is neither ffirtion nor netion!

'ost r*hite*ts do in f*t s+ tht whoeer lid the first stone de the

*onte>t! You do not s+ tht! You tr+ to nl+5e the *onte>t in w+ tht

iht ne*essitte the reol of the first stone!

$&: Absolutel+!

"#: To llow for enin in r*hite*ture, the teril itself + be*oered up. this is deprtin fro terilis! %n this w+, to do in

r*hite*ture wht $i*hrd &err does in s*ulpture *ould en to do the

reerse! Tht is, the *tul f*t of *oerin up terilit+ + brin the

obe*t *loser to r*hite*turl s opposed to teril ne*essit+! You do

this when +ou *oer up foundtions of *ertinpie*es be*use the found-

tions literll+ hold up the pie*es, but the work is not *on*eptull+ intended

to be seen tht w+!

$&: All + pie*es will stnd if the+ repl*ed into the round nd the erth

is then b*kfilled! The reson for the fi>tures nd foundtions is to stisf+enineerin *odes lid down b+ *ities, the federl bureu*r*+, nd so on!

Ior e>ple, Rotary Arc ws re6uired to he foundtion in order toeet *it+ *odes, lthouh it is pprent tht 1==-ton 6urter-*ir*le will

freestnd n+where!

6


7/9

"#: % would *ll +our work stru*turlist in the sense of lookin for the

stru*ture inherent in te>t! %t is tter of ser*hin in the stru*ture not so

u*h for the te>t or the enin of the te>t s for the inherent stru*turl

*p*it+ of the te>t! ht is the internl ne*essit+, the inwrd feelin tht

+ou he tlked bout/ ht is it other thn the works own stru*ture/ ht

is the s*ulpturl identit+ tht these thins re reelin/

$&: % *nt nswer tht 6uestion! %t depends on ones knowlede of the

*ondition nd histor+ of r*hite*ture,pintin, nd s*ulpture. it depends on

wht one brins to spe*ifi* work! % dont think there is n+ idel

interprettion: % dont think % need to rti*ulte do of how to see +

s*ulptures!

"#: % tr+in to et t the notion of stru*ture s prt of the ineffble*ondition of n obe*t! The presen*e of the stru*ture itself is no urntee of

rt! ht is it tht kes rt out of stru*ture/ %s sees tht is wht +ou

*on*ern +ourself with!

$&: %ts not soethin % pror into + work, lthouh % + re*oni5e it!

% ost interes

ted in sele*tin stru*tures tht define the *onte>t in 6uestion!

"#: ut rent +ou interested in their self-sele*tion rther thn +our se-

le*tion of the/ You do not ke n rbitrr+ sele*tion. the+ sele*t

theseles fro rne ofpossible r*heoloies!$&: % *onfused! The+ dont sele*t theseles! The+ re the

responsibilit+ of the person who is forultin the proble nd kin

de*ision s to the solution! You ipl+ tht % ust there to soehow re*eie

stru*tures/

"#: No! You re not pssie! % ruin tht +ou ene in nother

*tiit+! You do not inent or sele*t but rther un*oer rne of

possibilities!

$&: + ipli*tion the sele*ted solution is n ttept to resole ll of thepossible solutions to proble! The de*ision (sele*tion)pro*ess differs

**ordin to the *onte>t, lthouh there is neer n+ *ertitude!

"#: You did not inent the Rotary Arc. You found it! %t wspree>istent!

7


8/9

$&: "ree>istent in the world/ Tht sounds strnel+ 0linisti*!

"#: No,pree>istent in the *onte>t nd in the unierse of s*ulpture!

$&: No! A titled r* didnt e>ist in the histor+ or repertoire of s*ulpture!

"#: %t pree>isted! %t ws there nd +ou found it!

$&: here/

"#: %t pree>isted *on*eptull+! %t is possible to *on*eptuli5e it before +ou

ke it be*oe! The inheren*e tht +ou *onstntl+ refer to-the inheren*e

of s*ulpture, the inheren*e of lnds*pe, the inheren*e of n obe*t-dont

+ou think the+ pree>ist nd tht +our work ies the substn*e/

$&: % dont beliee tht + s*ulpturl *on*epts re found obe*ts! The+ re

inentions! =f *ourse the+ re relted to the trdition nd histor+ ofs*ulpture, but the+ re still inentions!

"#: % wnted to sk +ou bout ideolo+ in reltion to stru*ture! %t sees to

e tht the notion behind the lnds*pepie*es +ou do is nti- %deoloi*l in

the literl sense of ideolo+! % beliee tht +our urbnpie*es re nti-

ideoloi*l, but tht in their nti-ideolo+ the+ be*oe ideoloi*l!

$&: Art is lw+s ideoloi*l, whether it *rries n oertpoliti*l esseor is rt for rts ske nd bsed on n ttitude of indifferen*e! Art lw+s,

either e>pli*itl+ or ipli*itl+, nifests lue udent bout the lrer

so*ioloi*l *onte>t of whi*h it is prt! Art supports or nele*ts, ebr*es or

ree*ts *lss interests! Ttlins #onument to the Third $nternationalis no ore ideoloi*l thn bl*kpintin b+ Ad $einhrdt! %deoloi*l

e>pression does not liit itself to n ffirtion ofpower or politi*l bis!

To nswer +our 6uestion bout the ideoloi*l *ontent of + work, there is

no differen*e in the deree of ideoloi*l *ontent in + urbn nd lnds*pe

pie*es!

"#: % would rue tht +our work is non-ideoloi*l in the sense tht it doesnot spek to the enin of ns *ondition tod+ is--is the nturl nd

ph+si*l world! 'n hs unleshedph+si*l for*es tht *n destro+ hi t

reter rte now thn eer before! This ide hs *hned the forer

reltionship of n to 7od nd to the nturl world! 'odernis lw+s

spoke of the future, but now we re in wht % *ll futureless present,

8


9/9

*ondition of inen*e, in tht we f*e the bioloi*l e>tin*tion of the

entire *iili5tion! 'ns reltionship to 7od nd nture hs trditionll+

been irrored in r*hite*ture! ut % dont beliee +ou ddress this issue in

+our work, nor do ost r*hite*ts! %t sees to e tht underl+in

postodernist r*hite*ts return to histor+ is their intuitie reli5tion tht

the postnu*ler *ondition of n is retl+ *hned! %t sees tht the

n>iet+ of ns present *ondition hs *used r*hite*ts to brote their

responsibilit+ nd to o b*k to histor+ s if the+ were ostri*hes sti*kin

their heds in the snd!

$&: You *nt *onstru*t *uslit+ between the fer ofbioloi*l

e>tin*tion nd postodern r*hite*ts thubin throuh histor+ books! Thts

doosd+ philosoph+! True, odernist r*hite*ts belieed in better future.

the+ deeloped utopin ides for *it+ plnnin s well s prti* solutions

for workers housin! ut postodernists lso beliee in the future: the

future of AT

Conversa Entre Peter Eisennmann e Richard Serra

Documents

Transcript of Conversa Entre Peter Eisennmann e Richard Serra