21 The problem of the relationship between writings and buildings can be, at least in part,
resolved by the recognition that Eisenman in his writings is writing after and before the
experience. The writings cannot set the conditions of possibility for experience. The writings
do not come to be experienced as buildings. The writings mark the object. One can never be
the other. And yet, of course, they are mutually informing. They both demand a different
understanding of experience and of the act of interpretation. Their relationship will always
be marked by the heterological.
22 I have dealt with the relationship between Nachträglichkeit and interpretation in considerable
detail in ‘Translating Origins: Philosophy and Psychoanalysis’ in L.Venuti ed., Rethinking
Translation: Discourse, Subjectivity and Ideology (London: Routledge, 1992).
Andrew Benjamin 285