Customer Reviews

Peter Eisenman: Diagram Diaries (Universe Architecture Series)

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(4)

 

 

This volume consist 80% of computer generated drawings. Most of the 'drawings' or 'diagrams' are 3-d drawings with lines everywhere (even back lines that should be hidden) which makes them incomprehensible. They look just um,... messy & black! Maybe just for the look of "Complexity"? Well, can't learn much from them! Maybe architects like to collect these for collection sake. A lot of the diagrams are not accompanied by any explainations, which make them even more incomprehensible. This book includes a few essays by Eisenman at the front.

This book is a great resource for those who want to get at what Mr. Eisenman is all about. It is a surprisingly straightforward account of what he has been up to for the past thirty years or more(Straightforward for Eisenman, at any rate). The book does require careful scrutiny, just looking at the pictures will get you nowhere.

The title says it best. This is a series of diagrams which attempt to throw light on Eisenman's mostly superficial design ideas. Like much of his work, Eisenman fails to grasp intelligent spatial concepts, preferring instead the easy road of 2-dimensional graphic diagrams so lacking in any really meaningful or intuitive qualities that one onders whether these illustrations were intended for the design of a computer chipset or as spaces for human occupancy. Anyone who has seen (suffered?) the Wexner Center or the Columbus Convention Center will know that Eisenman is not capable of making good buildings. They have the thin, diagrammatic qualities of a full-size cardboard mock-up, not the substantive place-making associated with real architectural projects. Any casual walk around the city with your eyes open will be more instructive about the practice of architecture than reading a single page of this silly tome. Give this one a wide berth.

It doesn't seem to matter that Eisenman's buildings are hated by the public, fail as mature works of urbanism and are founded on an adolescent-grade ('Philosophy 101 for Juniors') theoretical basis. Eisenman's sucess is largely within the cliquey New York-European quasi-intellectual circle of professionals whose status is largely self-serving within their own limited circle. If you want to learn about architecture and urbanism, try Camillo Sitte, James Howard Kunstler, Jane Jacobs, Ada Louise Huxtable, William H. White, or any of the urban theorists who'se work is based on observation of actual human behavior, not speculations dreamed up to match a catchy diagram.

Eisenman is at best playing with himself (and we all know what a sign of maturity that is!). If you are young and impressionable, this sort of activity might grab your attention. But if you are seeking intelligent discourse, look elsewhere ... almost anywhere elswhere will do. Eisenman's books are not worth the toilet paper they are written on.

This is a must have for any architecture book collection. This book not only contains a linear timeline of Peter's work but amazing illustrations as well. This is a great book for an architecture student or anyone interested in theory and discourse. I was happy to (uncover and) discover Peter's personal, yet not so personal, relationship with his architecture. His distance and intimacy with his work leads to a very poetic and original linguistic creation. He is truely one of the most amazing architects; coming from someone as critical as myself, this is a great compliment to a man and his work. Read this book and see how Eisenman's work has progressed, developed, evolved, eroded, and digressed in the last 30 years. When you are done reading this book read this book again.

Excellent and comprehensive collection of Eisenman diagrams from his early Houses to the Virtual House. Somol gives a concise summary of his influences throughout his career, probably worth the price alone. All in all an excellent example of Eisenmans's work. Excellent value, as well.

It is no surprise that Eisenman's biggest following is among impressionable students. Any thinking person can easily see through the quasi-rhetorical posturing that Eisenman is most well known for. His an architecture of words only, with little real concern for the pragmatics of existence, the quality of urban spaces or just about anything that constitutes a workable, livable environment. More basically, the images themselves are uninteresting as architecture. They owe more to the technology of the computer and what IT can do, to any understanding of how quality spaces are formed, used, inhabited or designed in any meaningful way. Eisenman is at best a fad, but if learning about architecture is important, try looking for a few books on the work of Kahn, Barragan, Scarpa, Lutyens, Aalto, among others.

As they say, "Those who can, - do. Those who can't, - talk (or write)".

Unless you are insecure and seeking to impress people with 2nd-rate theorizing, give this guy a miss.

With all the color illustraion and diagram from the past til the current project. Easy to read and carrying through the idea of what he was on about.

Miserable, RA Ra Ra look what a good Architect I am, Iam, spend your money elsewhere