Le corbusier theories vs Peter Eisenman theories

First of all, i would want to say that I wasn't really into Le Corbusier method or way of thinking toward architecture at all. It might be because i was only absorbed only one side information from the movement called " Post modernism" where they tend to not only concern about functionalities. However, as I learned and read about Corbusier's theories  in details, those suggestion of changing were not all unreasonably. We could not denied that the movement that these guy <Corbusier, Gropuis, and Mies> began changed perspective of how people viewed architecture. Because Modern architecture was began when the world was changing which was after World war 1.The interesting about modern architecture was that it promised the social revolution. it was revolutionary architecture that said our cities were not good to live in. The building was looking toward the past rather than the future as well as that the client was no longer  a pope or a duke or whom that was powerful. Architecture was for public. So at that time, these movement gained lots of attention from artists as well as architects from all over Europe. The principle was about purity of every elements in the building, the mechanical paradise, where they wanted to show how the building stand up. Where the building was built to fit the propotion of human. Corbusier was kind of opposed Gothic style in architecture because he said that they were not anything that can defined the "structure" the geometric form that make "Parthenon" so great example above all.

 The above picture is the "Tour de Beurre- Rouen Cathedral" where above all structural as well as the all the excessive decorative elements was totally juxtapost with modernism theory where the function of cornice on longer existed, but they have found the sharp pure line that a flat-roofed building cuts across the brilliant sky.

However, as i mentioned about gothic architecture, it was actually had some critical roles in one of modernist icon, Mies Van de Rohe, whose was changing the architectural history in America. His work was about steel that reinforced with all the glasses and using the light materials that never before had seen at that in America. At that time after world war 2 most of Americans' building were thick and compose of chunky mansonary. I believe that Mies had learned about how gothic architecture use the glasses tell the story that they wanted to tell people. Mies used the same method but he did not use any color mosaic to do so but he was adapting the ideas of narrative and apply to modern architecture where they believe in " Expressionist structure" So he used the transparency of glasses to make people outside sees through his building as well as the composition of the structural itselves. 

In my opinion, i don't think anyone can stay away from the history. I mean that how we develop through every single things, like all the tools and machines that Le Corbusier was obsessed with. One of a really good example that Eisenman stated about this was that modernism was trying so hard to stayed away from the past but however they still use the same idea of columns where they only just eliminate all the size and decorative elements to fit their ideology. 


Modernism was all about form follows function. Where everything has to have structural meaning as well as fit the criteria of mass produced where machine and his hypothesis on how or what people should live in certain or limited space. 


Even if this this form follows function was intriguing and innovative ideas in the 19 to 20 th centuries. I don't think that functionality are everything in architecture because it is one of the art that act as a place where people can live their lives happily by what they have chosen by themselves. Eisenman reasons about this issue was that such factors as ornament and historical style carry such a powerful associations that they often, in themselves, control how we percieved a building. Function, too, is  a kind of controling symbol and since it meets our expectations we are rearly  provoked to analyze it more closely. I believe this is the matter of fact that people and architect were thinking or paying all of their attention to how can they make the place all functional and they forgot about "Asthetic" , the elements that really important in art. 


Most of Eisenmans' work was dealing with the "pure structure" so pure that stripped away not only from ornament but any sense of style, and even adherence to function. Most of people/architects opposed his ideas and preferred to called him as theorist or talkchitect rather than architect who build things. It's quite true that most of his work wasn't/ haven't built yet. However, when he was open his mouth to critic on something or others work, he would make sure that he was at least knew about it well enough to convinced people to believed that his sides of stories had some potential to be true. People would also argued about his built work that wasn't functioning well due to his consistancy of his own theories. 


As i mentioned earier, for example, now i'm doing project " House VI" the house that was recieved many controversy about its asthetic as well as its function. Eisenman named this house "House Vi" because i wasn't for the owner or anyone else, it was all about the experiment that due with space and the notion of inside and outside. This house was being compared with de stijl house "Schroder house" by Rietveld. However, there were many elements that two of these house can't really compare to each other. This house was also kind of challenge the theory of modernism about "form follow function" because this house is about fuction follows form/art. How he began the process with the diagram where Le corbusier mentioned that diagram was important but it's only a tools. Where he concerned about the first 4 planes and after the process of minipulation he just add the volume to the house later on. 


The process was really, let's say new and diverse with what we have been thought to think in architectural way. there is some example of the house as well as some eisenmans' work that challenge the universal rule that "Le corbusier respected"