Andrew pointed out this interview with Peter Eisenman at archinect. Much of the interview is about Eisenman's views on the role of architecture in society, and he says some very interesting things:
You see, my work basically says that while I may have my own personal political leanings, or I may have affinities to conservative politics, when it comes to architecture, ultimately its politics is autonomy. That’s why I can look...at Albert Speer, even though he was what he was – and I’m best friends with his son – I have no problem with that. I don’t have to be an ideologue; I’m not a flag-waver. I believe that the architecture that the fascist regime was doing was a very important moment in time.
Eisenman also speaks a bit about his design for the memorial for the murdered Jews of Europe, which is under construction in Berlin:
It has no imagery. In other words, it was not about imagery, it was not about marking, it was not about a cemetery. The fact that it could look like a cemetery is possible. It could also look like a field of corn. I was thinking about a field of corn I was lost in in Iowa when I did it. I was trying to do something that had no center, had no edge, had no meaning, that was dumb: D-U-M-B. And there’s nothing in the city that’s dumb. And therefore it was silent, it didn’t speak.I believe that when you walk into this place, it’s not going to matter whether you are a Jew or a non-Jew, a German or a victim: you’re going to feel something. And what I’m interested in is that experience of feeling something. Not necessarily anything to do with the Holocaust, but to feel something different than everyday experience.
I haven't seen the construction, but the memorial's website has some good mock-ups (as above). I followed the debate around building this memorial for a number of years and I admit that I was nonplussed by Eisenman's design; but the more that I think about it, the more I could endorse the idea of a non-iconic monument in which the viewer is brought out of her everyday physical or spatial experience. The "meaning," then, is left to the viewer to infer. In spite of what Eisenman says this sounds mildly postmodern to me, and I recognize that leaving it open-ended in this way also leaves it open to meanings which might be antithetical to the stated purpose of the monument. And then, too, while it may in fact provide a really crucial 'blank' (and still suggestive) space in the middle of Berlin, I'm not sure about the size: it's really big. (So I reserve the right to withhold judgement until it's all finished.)
[Reading the interview I was reminded that this week Albert Speer celebrated his 70th birthday. And yes, I did do some quick math...It's his son, who is also an architect: see the write-up in the FR or this article at Metropolis.]
Posted by Heather at July 30, 2004 03:01 PM
Comments