arsitektur.net

>> Kembali ke Volume 2 No. 4 (2008)

Rachmat Rhamdhani

Blurring takes many different definitions –the between and the interstitial– and many different forms in the work that is presented here. Basically, the process of blurring introduces a third phase into the process of design. The first phase of any different process considers site, program, and function, which are reality of what is required. Each of these can be seen as textual material constituting the most immediate information on which any specific design is based. The second kind of textual material comes from the interiority and the anteriority of architecture…

…The text of function, site, program, and the texts of the interiority and anteriority of architecture together defines a traditional practice…

The attempts to create a blurring require the introduction of other, third texts. These texts initially appear to be unmotivated by the traditional concepts of program, site, context, interiority, or anteriority. In one sense, these texts are both arbitrary and contingent, in that they both relate to and have the ability to alter the conditions of the traditional texts. (Eisenman, 2003: 8-9)
It is obvious that Eisenman is a very conceptual architect. He often emphasizes the importance of process in designing an architectural project. We may understand that most of his works during one decade starts from 1989 until 1998, which is summarized in a book titled “Blurred Zones”, show us his consistency on following ‘the rules’ of design. The term of blurring used by Eisenman here is related to his argument on defining his architecture in a conceptual way. I am not going to tell you that the term of blurring is not suitable to be applied here. In this writing, my concern is about the essence of blurring concept itself. The concept of blurring, which I try to resist on a very simple geometry exploration project, is not really easy to be accepted as a generally appropriate method for several reasons.

I put a quotation from Eisenman’s writing in the beginning of this essay to show us a clearer vision in understanding Eisenman’s blurring concept. He divided the process of design into three straight phases, which I do not fully agree with. The first phase is about the required reality, which includes considerations of any information or text related to site, program, and function. It is a classic process in design, and some says it is a must. In my opinion, analyses on these parameters will bring an embryo, if we cannot say incomplete fragment.

Looking to the second phase, we may quickly perceive this idea as an Eisenman’s thought. Yes, the term interiority and anteriority is often used by Eisenman in many different cases as a reference. He noted that “interiority of architecture defines the discipline, what it is that makes architecture singular; anteriority is the sedimented history of architecture, which has define architecture at any given historical moment” (Eisenman, 2003: 8). We may conclude that these instruments –both interiority and anteriority – are, according to Eisenman, what will make an architecture known and recognized as architecture thing. Both of them are what will put further meaning in architecture. Interiority and anteriority produce a more ‘unique’ condition that will distinguish two separated different design products.

These two phases – the first and the second phase – have no ability to create a blurred condition, which is stressed by Eisenman as a final result to clearly express mediation between articulate and visible, between form and content. The phase of site, function and program recognition, and the phase of recalling interiority and anteriority are the traditional concepts. And if we stop on these phase, we would not reach the blurred condition.

Blurring is needed to aim conceptual clarity as well as physical clarity. To reach this blurring condition, we have to enclose the third texts, the arbitrary and contingent text. As being noted by Eisenman on the early quotation, these third texts will alter the condition of the traditional texts, which mean we may aim a purely different result at the end if we apply this ‘final touch’ in the process of design.

Now, my questions are: Should we be very obedient to follow these three step-by-step phases to gain a blurred condition? Is it fine to fold back the process in a different arrangement of the process? Will that make any differences? Or can we be doubtless to accept that this process is the only right process? I have tried to make an experiment on exploring a series of geometrical forms in order to explain my idea about adding an out-context occurrence, which is re-arranging the phase to phase order. The idea is about making a water reservoir.

Figure 1. The image showing the development of physical form geometry on the experiment

First, I tried to follow the phase-to-phase sequence based on Eisenman’s concept of blurring as I explained before. The first phase is the function, site, and program, a required reality phase. I applied the elements of this phase by creating a simple form, a form that represents basic requirements needed to create a water reservoir. The results are two very common and boring forms, a box and other geometry looked like a flipped-over pyramid.

Figure 2. Two geometries represent the first phase of Eisenman’s blurring process on the experiment.

The decision to create two different geometries in this first phase is to make an understanding that the manifestation of this phase can happen in different stages, a deep study or not. The box geometry tells us a very basic form of a water reservoir. It is functioning. But the second form is more effectively functioning. This shape offers us a maximum volume to hold water by using a minimum amount of material used. My intention is to say that every phase can be applied in a poor objective, or in an advanced one. Next phase, the interiority and anteriority, is attained by creating a more complex form, something that changes in a certain way because a lot of more forces work. But here, the form has not been free from the basic rules of what is called a water reservoir. It still shows us that this water reservoir is still a water reservoir that is able to accommodate the water by its form. It has a form which gives us an understanding that it is a form having such a characteristic to be called as a water reservoir, like holding the water from falling to earth because of the gravitation. Simply, it is still a container – in its denotative meaning.

Figure 3. The interpretation of the second phase, a geometry that has its uniqueness

The third phase, denoted as a determining phase by Eisenman, is adopted here by creating a totally different form than the previous forms. Physically, it does not look like a water reservoir; it has no ‘containing’ characteristics. The mass is mainly constructed by vertical plans that create a totally open curve if we slice it by horizontal plan. It is a form poured by arbitrary and contingent texts. You may not find any parts in this model which are able to store the water. That is what makes it non-traditional texts that can alter the traditional texts.

Figure 4. The form established as a representation of the third texts

Back to the problem, what would happen if we reformat the chronology? Now the challenge is to arrange the sequence in every possible order. To make it easier, I numbered all of these geometrical forms in the number of 1 to 4, 1 for the box, 2 for the flipped-over pyramid, 3 for the second phase geometry, and 4 for the third phase.

Figure 5. Some of possible sequences among the total of 96 sequences combination

There are 94 different combinations of number arrangement to attempt for the new process. Then now there should be many different possibilities to take these phases in a different way. There are no guarantees that all of the combinations can work and succeed. But, there are also no guarantees that Eisenman’s arrangement of phases is the only arrangement that can be coming off with flying colors.

A strict decision that design process should pass some certain stages of phases is not truly right. Eisenman’s claim to produce a blurring condition, which he believed to be the final and appropriate result in the process of design, by determining very rigid and chronological phases, can be an incorrect argument.

There is no need to follow the step one by one if we think we can obtain a better outcome by trying to start from the end. There must be many different contexts and different required treatments in many different conditions that it could alter the concepts of blurring presented by Eisenman to different areas and dialectics. Criticism is often needed to open our mind and to find a wider horizon of our knowledge and understanding. What I try to do here is just creating a new field of discussion. I do believe that there is no absolute right or wrong. Each of us has our own opportunity to choose. Arguing based on a critical thinking is better than accepting based on the need to be secured of critiques.

References

Eisenman, Peter (2003). Blurred Zones Investigations of the Interstitial Eisenman Architects 1989-1998. New York: The Monacelli Press.