(subject)Frank Lloyd Wright
(subject)New York School of Interior Design
(sponsoring body)Peter Eisenman
(subject)Robert A. M. Stern
Peter Eisenman cautions New York School of Interior Design (NYSID) students not to follow him, not to believe anything he says or does; uses provocative metaphor to illustrate his intent. Opens immediately with student questions: why should your houses be inhabited? Eisenman claims that "most is so boring" that he offers an alien container to provoke one out of comfort and routine. Comfort is dreariness. Separation of art and life: these houses question routine. “I don’t believe in design…and I certainly don’t believe in interior design.” Eisenman’s clients come to him because he is experimenting with the nature of architecture. They aren’t looking for style. House VI: clients brought in their “cutesy, ye olde” furniture. Eisenman is all for it. Desire for a somatic response. He describes how he designs doorways that are too narrow for a fat client (“he feels the walls”). Intense sensual stimulation is more important than function. This is what architecture is about. Neither right nor wrong. Eisenman doesn’t believe in progress or change. He discusses his student years and how his quest to understand architecture continues. Still exploring the limits of the rectilinear form. Color in House VI: indicates the process of making (much like the film stills of Peter Kubelka). Green/red stairs code keys to a gray axis. Situational topological geometry. Q: do your clients ever impose themselves on your architecture? “They are objects independent of me.” Eisenman describes House II: the client chose to live in the basement because “he hated himself for hating the house, a very middle-class response.” Discussion about sculpture, architecture, and scale.
There’s more! What you see on this site is only what is viewable online. Please visit our website to find out more about what’s in the archives.