Contextualizing the Ineffable

Contextualizing

the Ineffable

Nathaniel A Hammitt ARCH 611-002 Nathaniel A Hammitt Daniel Barber, Instructor ARCH 611-002 10 January 2014 Daniel Barber, Instructor 10 January 2014

N. A. Hammitt

In 1982 two theoreticians engaged in a debate that would prove pivotal to the formation of con-

temporary architectural theory. These men – Christopher Alexander and Peter Eisenman – met for a brief battle of wits, pitching their architectural practices and unique theories against each other. At first glance

most would see their interaction as a battle of egos; each had a unique approach to design that contrasted with the accepted approach of Modern architecture. So who won?

Even now, three decades since their fateful clash, the impact of the 1982 debate and the conse-

quential shifts it imposed on the architectural profession still rest largely unresolved. Contemporary

architectural theory has not elected which of the two men (if either) was worthy to impress their propositions as the only (or best) way of designing. Their built works and published theories illustrate that Eisenman and Alexander both stand exemplary for committed design philosophies and realization of

their ideas into constructed projects. Simply put, contemporary design and pedagogical structure has not

embraced either theorist’s polemical proposals completely. Nuances in contemporary theory predate and post-date the 1982 lecture, and therefore their debate proves a useful watershed moment (and lens) with which to view previous theory and also to project the future of architectural scholarship and practice.

To more easily understand the consequences of their debate, this paper summarizes the terms of

Eisenman and Alexander’s 1982 interaction and, given the path architecture has taken since then, sug-

gests ways in which both participants have been proven correct or incorrect. The strengths and weak-

nesses of each will be taken into account, as well as points that they share in common. Two post-World War II case studies (Rafael Moneo’s Logrono City Hall and Peter Zumthor’s Steilneset Witch Memorial) will also be considered for how they subscribe to or dissolve the respective theories of Alexander and Eisenman.

For this first section (Summary) in keeping with the polarizing nature of this topic the paper has

been structured to heighten and visually illustrate points of connection (or, more often, dissonance) be-

tween the two competing points of view. Purple bars underscore potentially shared views and theoreti-

cal conceits. Blue bars mark Alexander’s thoughts. Red bars mark Eisenman’s thoughts. “Contemporary” always refers to 1982 unless explicitly stated otherwise.

1

All text ‘in quotes’ has been extracted from 1982 lecture.

CA = Christopher Alexander (left column), PE = Peter Eisenman (right column)

CA_Feeling

Summary I Jungian Archetypes

Contextualizing the Ineffable PE_Thinking

To consider a piece of architecture purely from

Eisenman calls himself out as a ‘lion’ to Alexan-

sionally, and the sensual impacts—the light, sight,

to revel in his ‘thinking’ archetype.

a ‘thinking’ standpoint is to deny the very act of being human. We move through space processounds, texture, and scale of a building carry

ineffable qualities which can only be experienced in a tactile, tangible medium. To feel the weath-

ering of a stone wall, to watch and be watched by

passers-by, and to behold yourself in the presence of a building is to truly appreciate architecture for

its inherent joys and pleasures. Buildings must be built with the user in mind, considering, foremost, the primal and ergonomic impact that a building can have on its inhabitants.

Alexander argues that ‘words are very, very cheap’

and can often be misleading. He recognizes that in the description of a set of buildings, ‘whatever the words are… the actual buildings are totally different’ from how they are experienced in person.

der’s ‘Christian’, vilifying his own intellectual ap-

proach to architectural criticism and allowing him Regardless of our actions, our intentions are guided by purpose. Our purpose, in turn, is fueled by

thoughts, and it is these thoughts which we must

carefully study in order to appreciate any work of architectural intention. Buildings removed from

any formal or theoretical purpose are unfinished and until their theoretical underpinnings can be acknowledged our awareness for their architectural significance will not be fully satisfied. All

buildings, whether consciously or otherwise, have

a theoretical catalyst in their formal arrangements and overall composition. ‘Feeling’ archetypes perceive this composition ‘primitively’, while ‘thinking’ archetypes understand not just the how of a building but also the why.

While both Eisenman and Alexander seem torn to extreme ends of the Jungian Thinking/Feeling

continuum, their ideologies are connected in the way that both men perceive unspoken and intrinsic characteristics and qualities in built space. While Eisenman may express his emotions through an introspec-

tive consideration of a building’s theoretical underpinnings, this is nothing more than ‘feeling’ archetype at a macroscopic scale. Alexander on the other hand claims that buildings are in fact unspoken expres-

sions of our inward desire to see primitive wholeness expressed at multiple scales, and his recognition of

scalar, ordered architecture is based on ‘thinking’ principles: research and spatial nomenclature allow his more phenomenological conceptions of architecture to find connection and cohesion between disparate elements.

2

N. A. Hammitt CA_Ontological

Summary II Cosmology

PE_Epistemological

Ontology: philosophical study of the nature of be-

Epistemology: philosophy concerned with the na-

Alexander’s architecture is grounded in qualita-

Eisenman’s cerebral approach to architectural de-

ing, becoming, existence, or reality.

tive perception. He recognizes that the process by which humans have interacted with the built and designed environment over the past 300 years is

predicated on a anthropocentric (humanist) world view and that this paradigm impacts the way in which we consider our reality (centered on the

human scale) and our buildings (biased toward the tangible).

ture and scope of knowledge.

sign places him further at the epistemological end of the spectrum in regard to how we understand the cosmology of our built environment. Unlike Alexander’s ‘beauty in the state of being,’ Eisen-

man revels in the intangible, the ethereal, and the

frenetic. This allows for multiple ways of knowing

a project, hence his more intellectual cosmology of architecture.

Eisenman and Alexander approach the topic of cosmology not from an astronomical perspective but

rather from the perspective of an agent perceiving his/her agency within the universe. With this in mind

it becomes a little easier to digest exactly what Eisenman means when he asserts that the ‘order of a Coke machine is available [knowable] to us because our casual, mechanistic view of the world.’ Both Eisenman and Alexander agree that existing (1982) modernist cosmology is insufficient to fully understand architecture.

3

CA_Wholeness of the Ordinary

Summary III Primitive Typologies

Contextualizing the Ineffable PE_Typology of Difference

Alexander questions the taboo of pitched roofs.

Eisenman leaves a verbal maze to weave through

item is a traditional pitched roof, the students

quality at a macroscopic level, he believe that the

Citing an example where he prompts his studio to design a set of buildings and the non-negotiable

‘snigger’ and question the primitivism of the shape.

This avoidance of traditional building forms enrages Alexander, who believes modern-ism has

engendered a blind subscription to non-traditional shapes (‘the weird angle, the butterfly’, etc.). The traditional ‘pitched roof contains a… very primi-

tive essence as a shape’, which Alexander believes should be a touchstone for architecture.

in his exposition of a typology of difference. While

he grants that buildings must have a total cohesive ‘presence of absence’ produces a condition most

‘closely approximate of our innate feelings’. This can be hard to grapple with, especially since ar-

chitects generally strive for holistic projects. But Eisenman does have a point; buildings can elicit

a much stronger reaction by suggesting that their composition leads to more than the sum of their parts.

Eisenman and Alexander are diametrically opposed on this matter. The latter believes that typologies ought to be cohesive, while the former argues for a typology of differences.

This mirrors the smooth vs. striated oppositions; landscape is built either in a normative way (paying

homage to what has already been done and striking our senses at a primitive level) or a suggestive way

(composition with disparate parts that leaves those who experience the building curious and questioning why certain elements are so composed).

4

N. A. Hammitt CA_Converging opinions

Summary IV Scale vs. Size

PE_Presence of architecture

To consider a piece of architecture purely from

Eisenman calls himself out as a ‘lion’ to Alexan-

sionally, and the sensual impacts—the light, sight,

to revel in his ‘thinking’ archetype.

a ‘thinking’ standpoint is to deny the very act of being human. We move through space processounds, texture, and scale of a building carry

ineffable qualities which can only be experienced in a tactile, tangible medium. To feel the weath-

ering of a stone wall, to watch and be watched by

passers-by, and to behold yourself in the presence of a building is to truly appreciate architecture for

its inherent joys and pleasures. Buildings must be built with the user in mind, considering, foremost, the primal and ergonomic impact that a building can have on its inhabitants.

Alexander argues that ‘words are very, very cheap’

and can often be misleading. He recognizes that in the description of a set of buildings, ‘whatever the words are… the actual buildings are totally different’ from how they are experienced in person.

der’s ‘Christian’, vilifying his own intellectual ap-

proach to architectural criticism and allowing him Regardless of our actions, our intentions are guided by purpose. Our purpose, in turn, is fueled by

thoughts, and it is these thoughts which we must

carefully study in order to appreciate any work of architectural intention. Buildings removed from

any formal or theoretical purpose are unfinished and until their theoretical underpinnings can be acknowledged our awareness for their architectural significance will not be fully satisfied. All

buildings, whether consciously or otherwise, have

a theoretical catalyst in their formal arrangements and overall composition. ‘Feeling’ archetypes perceive this composition ‘primitively’, while ‘thinking’ archetypes understand not just the how of a building but also the why.

One unresolved point from Alexander and Eisenman’s debate is the matter of scale. While both work at

the building and urban scale, Alexander’s approach is notably more concerned with the human ergonomics of furniture and enclosure. Eisenman treats space much as Mies van der Rohe does, with an awareness of the urban fabric and a tendency to macroscopically analyze site context. Both Alexander and

Eisenman believe that building components should have a sense of rightness but the distinction is in the details.

5

CA_Seeking absolute perfection

Summary V Comfort

Contextualizing the Ineffable PE_Inverted comfort/disharmony

Alexander maintains that perfection in architec-

Reflecting back on the cosmological conditions of

‘absolutely comfortable—physically, emotionally,

stylistically Modern) worldview. Whereas certain

ture is derived from comfort. In his projects he seeks to attain ‘harmonious’ buildings that are practically, and absolutely.’

This calls into question matters of exactitude that ‘are much, much harder to do than most of the

present [1982] generation of architects will admit

to’. By seeking perfection in all aspects of building

(either through contrasting materials, ergonomics, or spatial experiences) buildings take on a qualities that transcends the everyday.

design, Eisenman posits that building inhabitants still derive comfort from an archaic (although

buildings are notable for their harmony, Eisenman believes that ‘disharmony might be part of the

cosmology we live in’. If everything were too comfortable, he suggests, just as in Tolstoy’s story of a

man with every possible modern convenience, ‘he

was so comfortable… and so pleasant that he didn’t know… his physical and mental reality. There was nothing’.

Alexander and Eisenman both work to provide carefully considered buildings and landscapes for their

clients. Both understand the sensual impact that buildings can make and the effects that a person can feel biasing them toward either comfort or discomfort. Both admit that harmony and disharmony exists, but while Eisenman seeks to carve out negatives of popular cosmology and create new spaces to invert how

we perceive space, Alexander believes that architects should be ‘entrusted with the creation of … harmony in the world.’ Eisenman does not.

6

N. A. Hammitt

Back to the Present

These summaries should be contrasted with each speaker’s views of actual built projects. As only

one of the buildings enumerated in their lecture was built in the post-World War II era (Palazzo Chiericati and Chartres Cathedral are significantly earlier) Let us consider two buildings for comparison: Logrono Town Hall by Rafael Moneo and the Steilneset Memorial by Peter Zumthor.

Case Study I

Rafael Moneo’s Logrono Town Hall

Rafael Moneo is famous for a modified mode of late modernism. Toeing the line of post-mod-

ern, Moneo consistently employs building elements and facades that reference out-of-scale classical

themes. His Town Hall at Logrono was cited in the 1982 lecture by Peter Eisenman to call attention to the too-skinny columns of its southern courtyard (appendix: figure 1). These too-thin columns are balanced

at the opposite end of the courtyard with a series of columns that are too thick. But is this balance or im-

balance? And is one better than the other? The building is undeniably architectural. Eisenman acknowledges that the town hall building steps back from the urban fabric (appendix figure 2), and this distance

not only causes the building to fold in in itself, but its column and courtyard scaling causes even the most uneducated Spaniard to ask why? Why this shape? Why this scale? And in this question, Moneo asserts

that a building with right-sized (comfortable) units does not cause its users to pause and consider their

place in inhabiting the building. Out-of scale elements cause us to question our interaction with the built environment.

Alexander would disagree with this scaling of elements, but he would not disagree with the cos-

mology it seeks to promote. Our anthropocentric view of the world is comfortable in the Logrono Town Hall. By acknowledging a poche and a void – an other space and a public space, the building seems to

beckon its users to consider the unspoken tie between self and others. And although the effects of this

milieu may be lost on Eisenman, it would not be lost on Alexander or the inhabitants of Logrono who have lived with the presence of an others/self past for over 400 years. Logrono, of course, was the main seat

of the Basque witch trials in the early 16th century. This heritage is bound to the people of this place, 7

Contextualizing the Ineffable

and carries an unspoken presence of exclusion – and possibly fear – into even newly-constructed build-

ings. This preclusion to an others/self worldview is echoed in Richard Sennett’s most recent publication Together in which he compares living in a culture of inclusion/exclusion to the philosophical question

of Montaigne’s Cat: in this example, Montaigne famously asks, ‘when I am playing with my cat, how do I

know that she is not playing with me’. Interpreted by Sennett (Sennett Together, 2012), this others/self

dichotomy is indicative of an awareness that we all innately have for the phenomenological interaction of space/self. When we inhabit a building, as I am sure both Alexander and Eisenman would agree, how do we know it is not the building inhabiting us?

Case Study II

Peter Zumthor’s Steilneset Memorial

One building that astutely addresses the harmony and discord of social interaction is the Steilneset

Memorial by Peter Zumthor. Completed in 2011, this memorial is composed of two buildings— one, a

triangular pavilion of wood, commemorates the 91 lives lost in Norway’s Vardo witch trials of 1662-1663, another, a cube of glass and steel, provides an introspective and build-form awareness for the role we all play in accusation and interaction with those beyond our boundary of comfort.

While the buildings physically occupy a pier of stone in the Norwegian hinterlands, they also se-

mantically stands alone as two of the very few buildings whose entire purpose is to memorialize the lives lost to ideological hatred. To Alexander, this awareness for time and memorial resonates with his beliefs that buildings built in basic form (appendix: figure 3) connect with our primitive perception of meaning in architecture. The triangular structure looks like a traditional roof gable, representative of Spartan

Nordic homes of the time period. The cube structure carries a greater Heideggerian trope addressing the ‘question of being’ (Beckman Heidegger and Environmental Ethics, 2000). By situating these two build-

ings in opposition with one another, it is easy to see their respective impact on their inhabitants. The

buildings’ simple platonic forms resonate so deeply with us because they are unencumbered with systems and methods of formation. They simply exist to provide the most ‘perfect physical, emotional, and practical’ representation of the witch trials. In his Timeless Way of Building Alexander asserts that ‘the very

8

N. A. Hammitt

methods we invent to free us from our fears… are themselves the chains whose grip on us creates our difficulties’ (Alexander the Timeless Way, 1979). Certainly the Steilneset Monument is beset by a system of

methods appropriate for a memorial, but the way in which the elements of both buildings are structured brings out the depth of their purpose and still conveys, in simple terms, the readability of their intent.

In one of his soliloquys at the 1982 lecture, Eisenman maintains that ‘disharmony might be part of the

cosmology we exist in’, and that architecture should ‘find a way to deal with that anxiety’. He would un-

doubtedly find solace in the way with which Zumthor addresses the world’s disharmony and anxiety by

maintaining an ordering of elements that is a cosmological inversion of our expectations for a memorial.

Steilneset may be one of the few buildings that Alexander and Eisenman would agree pushes modern

architecture toward an idealized, ineffable reality. The memorial harmonizes space with an impeccable

exactitude while still leaving room for interpretation and allowing visitors to experience the disharmony of a void— questioning why it was done and how it allows us to question the anthropocentric reality of others/self cosmology.

Reflections on Summaries

Christopher Alexander had his hands full openly debating Peter Eisenman. Although no sources

divulge what the audience or speakers were given as a prompt prior to the debate other than the title

“Constrasting Concepts of Harmony in Architecture”, both participants knew each other very well (both studied at the AA) and both no doubt were aware that their respective interests would converge on the

merits, nature, and origin of order, form, and harmony in architectural theory. Considering the gravitas of this discussion, both speakers admirably held their own and were able to make valid, if contestable, claims on their particular ideologies.

Given the prior five-point summary, it now falls to discuss which of the two speakers was most

successful in their arguments. Also, given development in the thirty-one years since their debate, which speaker has triumphed in the long run? Eisenman, described by Reyner Banham as “a self-annotating solipsist”, is infamous for providing casual comments on the normalcy of life ‘I always get nervous in a

situation like this’, etc. , and then striking quickly to make a point that proves his supremacy in a given 9

Contextualizing the Ineffable

argument (pick any of the sentences you have to read three times to fully understand). Alexander on the other hand employs a more Socratic approach – when asked about French Structuralists, ‘What do they

say?’— dissolving a problem piecemeal and providing systematic insight (plus his own opinions) against

those of his opponent. Taken objectively, Eisenman made claims that were both bold and self-reinforcing.

He begins and ends his debate dialogue by referencing specialists in the field (French Structuralists, as

well as architect Rafael Moneo) which throw Alexander for a loop. Alexander, for his part, rolls with the

punches. Much of Eisenman’s attack is directed at a lecture Alexander gave the night before their interaction, and Alexander disproves many of Eisenman’s attacks (such as his claims that Alexander supports a

‘window is too large’ or ‘too small’) by simply saying that Eisenman misunderstood his lecture the previous day.

While this may be true, and while Eisenman may have made unfounded arguments, his pugilistic

tone and caustic remarks place him as the clear aggressor in this debate. And given Alexander’s blanket

statements made in self-defense (such as the infamous remark that Moneo and Eisenman are ‘fucking up

the world’) Eisenman should be seen as the winner of this particular engagement. However, one lecture is hardly enough to judge a man on his merits. In the 31 years since their debate, both Eisenman and Alex-

ander have stood exemplary for many built works (Eisenman for his successful deconstructivist projects

in Ohio, Spain, etc. and Alexander for his work facilitating master-plan developments at the University of Oregon, as well as 200 built projects around the globe). Both men will inevitably be judged by their theory and buildings collectively, and while Eisenman is currently more popular and influential on contemporary fashionable architectural theory than Alexander, I believe Alexander will have the last word. His

concepts (especially those in A Pattern Language and The Timeless Way of Building) are more adaptable and will outlast the stylistic preferences so in vogue with Eisenman, Liebskind, Kipnis, Schumacher etc.

That is not to say that the theories or Eisenman and Alexander are expanding away from each other (or

that their cosmologies are exclusive) – the two could, for instance, be unified in a building or development predicated upon Alexander’s spatial patterns but composed deconstructivist formal arrangements. It is

possible to think and feel. To appreciate discord and harmony. Our challenge comes in knowing where to draw the line and articulate boundaries between the comforts of enumerable buildings and the inspired works of ineffable space.

10

N. A. Hammitt Appendix Figure 1

Source: http://archidose.org/wp/2011/06/13/five-projects-by-rafael-moneo/ Figure 2

Source: http://neworleanscityhall.blogspot.com/2008/02/logrono-city-hall.html

11

Contextualizing the Ineffable Figure 3

Source: http://www10.aeccafe.com/blogs/arch-showcase/files/2011/08/413.jpg Figure 4

Source: http://www.jonathanalger.com/2012/01/steilneset-witch-memorial/

12

Works Cited 40 Lotus International, Contrasting Concepts of Harmony in Architecture: The 1982 Debate Between

Christopher Alexander and Peter Eisenman. Milan, Italy, 1983, IV, 60-68.

Alexander, Christopher. The Timeless Way of Building. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford

University Press, 1979.

Alger, Jonathan. Steilneset Witch Memorial. January 5, 2012. http://www.jonathanalger.com/2012/01/steilneset-witch-memorial/

Architectural Record. Steilneset Memorial. November 8, 2011. https://archrecord.construction.com/features/2011/1108-Steilneset-Memorial/Steilneset Memorial-2.jpg Beckman, Tad. Martin Heidegger and Environmental Ethics. Claremont, CA, Harvey Mudd

College, 2000. http://www2.hmc.edu/~tbeckman/personal/Heidart.html.

Hill, John, A Weekly Dose of Architecture: Five Projects by Rafael Moneo. June 13, 2011.

http://archidose.org/wp/2011/06/13/five-projects-by-rafael-moneo/ MacRaild, Matt. Logrono City Hall. February 2008. http://neworleanscityhall.blogspot.com/2008/02/logrono-city-hall.html Sennett, Richard Sennett. Together. New York, NY: Yale University Press, 2012.

13

Nathaniel A Hammitt ARCH 611-002 Daniel Barber, Instructor 10 January 2014