Rethinking Architecture| A reader in cultural theory

The plurality and affirmation of heterogeneity that marks the refusal of tradition
cannot be reduced to a simple negativity. Negativity is incorporated, located—houses still
have to shelter—in what is at play here, but the experimentations and developments
within art, architecture and philosophy that signal the affirmative within the present are
themselves not explicable in terms of that negativity.^8 They are not the simple negation of
dominance. This is because there is a necessary discontinuity between the interpretive
apparatus handed down by tradition and experimentation. The avant-garde demands
experimentation within philosophy, interpretation, etc., as well as in works of art,
architecture and literature. Works situated within this discontinuity—the site of tension—
are affirmative. They mark what could be described as the copresence of negation and
creativity. It goes without saying that this is the site of Eisenman’s work. Its relation to
tradition, to teleology, to there being an ideal essence of architecture, all enact this
interpretive, conceptual and philosophical tension. Indeed it is precisely in these terms
that it is possible to understand the developments within Eisenman’s work. ‘Scaling’,
‘decomposition’ and ‘dislocation’ are all means whereby resistance and affirmation take
place.
Eisenman’s development as an architect is to be understood as the continual search for
the means—both material and philosophical—to overcome the ‘complacency’ of
tradition. He writes of House VI in the following terms:

The design process of this house, as with all the architectural work in this

book, intended to move the act of architecture from its complacent

relationship with the metaphysic of architecture by reactivating its

capacity to dislocate; thereby extending the search into the possibilities of

occupiable form.^9

In a recent interview he links the practice of dislocation to that of location, thereby
indicating how the question of the housing of tradition is to be understood. It is an answer
that highlights the specificity of architecture though at the same time allowing it to be
extended beyond the range of material habitation.

architecture faces a difficult task: to dislocate that which it locates. This is

the paradox of architecture. Because of the imperative of presence, the

importance of the architectural object to the experience of the here and

now, architecture faces this paradox as does no other discipline.^10

While the importance of this particular paradox within architecture cannot be denied, it is
also present within other areas of study research and artistic practice. Location within
architecture is repeated elsewhere in terms of the imperative of sense. No matter how
disruptive or subversive a text or work of art may be the possibility of meaning must
none the less inhere. The recognition of the necessary interplay between location and
dislocation and the grounds for arguing for its extension are outlined by Eisenman in
terms of function; that is in teleological terms.

Andrew Benjamin 277