PETER

EISENMAN
1932-
PHILOSOPHY

• Peter Eisenman is an American architect.

• While working with theorist Colin Rowe in Cornell
university ,he re-examined the origins of modern
architecture ; particularly the early works of architect Le
Corbusier.
• Considered one of the New York Five, Eisenman is known
for his writing as well as his designs, which have been
called deconstructive.
• In 1967, Eisenman’s residential designs were labelled
carboard architecture because of their thin white walls
Deconstructivism is a movement of
and model like qualities.
postmodern architecture which appeared
• He has spent majority of his career in distilling in the 1980s. It gives the impression of
architectural form down to theoretical science. the fragmentation of the constructed
building. It is characterized by an absence
of harmony, continuity, or symmetry
2
 PHILOSOPHY
• He rejected the functional concept of modernism by designing
staircases that led to nowhere or columns that did not function as
supports.

• According to eisenman when you can sense the incompleteness

of a structure it is a paradoxical experience.

• If the parts that make up a whole are in conflict, the sensation of

the incomplete contests the fact that the structure is, in fact a
finished and fully enclosed space.

• His works are characterized by disconcerting forms , angles and

materials.

• Eisenman’s focus is mainly on “liberating architecture” from the

confining rules of modernism such as –
form follows function
Truth to materials etc.
3
THE ARCHITECTURE WE REMEMBER IS THAT WHICH
NEVER CONSOLES OR COMFORTS US.
- PETER EISENMAN

4
 WEXNER CENTER FOR
.
ARTS
• It is the Ohio state university’s THE
multidisciplinary, international lab for the MUSEUM
exploration and advancement of THAT
contemporary art. THEORY
• The firm of Richard Trott and Peter Eisenman BUILT
won the design competition for Wexner center
of arts.
• It was aimed at linking past to present through
unconventional means.
• The end result is one of the first large scale
constructions of deconstructive architecture.
• For some, it heralded a validation of
deconstructivism and theory, while its
problems provided ammunition for others
who saw theory and practice as
complimentary but ultimately divergent
pursuits.
5
DESIGN PROCESS

• As in much of Eisenman’s work,

strong grid systems dominate the
formal language of the building.

• The urban grids of the city 1. IDENTIFY TWO ADJACENT GRIDS

3. IDENTIFY PATHWAYS,TRACES,VIEWS
of Columbus and of the university, AND OTHER POTENTIAL CONNECTIONS
slightly off-kilter from one another, ON SITE
overlap within the project.

• The 12.5 degrees of variation

between two result in an axial
rotation within the museum, with
corresponding tectonic elements
creating jarring moments of
intersection as the two systems
compete for primacy 2.COMPOSE THEM ON TOP OF ONE 4. ORGANIZE PROGRAM,CIRCULATION
ANOTHER AND BUILDING ELEMENTS TO
CORRESPOND TO CONNECTIONS
6
DESIGN PROCESS
• Eisenman coupled his grid abstractions with a
series of figures that would play a key role in
his aim of linking the past with the present.
• The most prominent of these figures exists as
a reconstruction of a part of the armory that
occupied the site until 1958.

1.Reduce the form to its essential components.

2.Fragment the elevation by cutting away

pieces and replacing them with an inert
material.

7
DESIGN PROCESS
• Running through the core of the
building is the Wexner Center’s most
recognizable feature: a 540-foot long
“scaffolding” structure that extrudes
the planar grid systems into a three-
dimensional matrix.
• Exposed and partially unenclosed, it
is meant to look deliberately
incomplete, repudiating
preconceptions of solid and void as
fixed properties of architecture.

8
In revisiting the design devices eisenman used for the design of wexner center for arts, it has
been possible to determine that much of the abstraction of form derives itself from co-related
processes

After the museum’s completion, the building was plagued with a series of construction and design
issues that tarnished its public image.

Unfortunately for deconstructivists everywhere, these flaws appeared to be the result of an

ambitious design with an intentional disregard for the practical considerations of traditional
architects—a foundational axiom of the doctrine.

But it seems that most of these issues have been overcome.

History, however, should continue to remember them in the context of this great museum as a
testament to the price of translation between theory and actualization.
9