Notes on Conceptual Architecture: Towards a Definition

Author(s): Peter D. Eisenman

Source: Design Quarterly, No. 78/79, Conceptual Architecture (1970), pp. 1-5
Published by: Walker Art Center
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4047397
Accessed: 21-05-2023 21:15 +00:00

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Walker Art Center is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Design Quarterly

This content downloaded from 52.166.116.5 on Sun, 21 May 2023 21:15:08 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
jiro!!

Design Quarterly
No. 78/79(1970), pp. 1-5

Notes on Conceptual Architecture: Towards a Definition

by Peter D. Eisenman

There is no textual or image content missing from the article. It is

presented as the author intended.

August 20, 2021

This content downloaded from 52.166.116.5 on Sun, 21 May 2023 21:15:08 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
NOTES ON CONCEPTUAL ARCHITECTURE:
Towards a Definition

Peter D. Eisenman

.1

.2

.3

.4

.5

1. For an example of the use of the term architecture or 'environment' as an over-simplified metaphor, see Benedikt, Michael, "Sculpture as Architecture: New
York Letter, 1966-67," ed. by Battcock, Gregory, Minimal Art: A Critical Anthology, E. P. Dutton and Co., Inc., New York, 1968.

2. For an example of such a text, see Panofsky, Erwin, Idea, A Concept in Art Theory, University of South Carolina Press, Columbia, S.C., 1968.

3. For example, it is debatable in terms of a conceptual art whether there has been much change in the last fifty years, if one were to, say, compare the work of
Mondrian with,say,a Sol Lewitt.

4. See Karshan, Donald, "The Seventies: Post-Object Art," insert In catalogue, Conceptual Art and Conceptual Aspects, Karshan, Donald, The New York Cultural
Center, New York, 1970.

5. Lippard, Lucy R. and Chandler, John, "Thus the difficulty of abstract conceptual art lies not in the idea but in finding the means of expressing that idea so that
it is immediately apparent to the spectator . can be considered similar in intention. "The Dematerialization of Art," Art International, Volume Xli, No. 2,
February, 1968.
EISENMAN 1

This content downloaded from 52.166.116.5 on Sun, 21 May 2023 21:15:08 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 .6

.7

.8

.9

6. It is possible to make this same point in another way: to say that while a conceptual art and a conceptual architecture could be similar in an idea state, there
is an inherent difference when it comes to the realized object. Where a conceptual art object can remain in a more pure state, for example, as a mathematical
notation, built architecture takes on cultural, pragmatic and semantic references. Thus the conceptual aspect of an architecture cannot be defined by what is
conceptual in,say,painting and sculpture.

7. For a more detailed explanation of this point, see Richard Woliheim's discussion of common structure in his article, "Minimal Art," reprinted in Minimal Art: A
Critical Anthology, ed. by Battcock, Gregory, E. P. Dutton and Co., Inc., New York, 1968.

8. For an explanation of deep and surface structure, see any number of texts by Noam Chomsky. For a less technical, in a linguistic sense, description, see his
Language and Mind, Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc., New York, 1968.

9. It would seem that modern technology has provided architecture with the means for disassociating pragmatic limitations from semantic or syntactic concerns.
See my article, "From Object to Relationship: Giuseppe Terragni," Casabella, No. 344, Milano, January 1970.
2

This content downloaded from 52.166.116.5 on Sun, 21 May 2023 21:15:08 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 .10

.11

.12

.13

10. This taxonomy has been criticized by Emilio Ambasz as failing to take into account another aspect: the discourse between matter and process. While
acknowledging this criticism, the intention here is to limit the discussion and to focus on the distinction between images which are retrieved primarily for
their meaning and those which are retrieved primarily for their form, so as to clarify semantic and syntactic issues, as well as to articulate the difference between
the semantic and conceptual realm.

11. Thus it is possible to suggest a re-evaluation of the work of such groups as Archigram and Superstudio in this context to see which aspects are truly conceptual
and which aspects are merely perceptual-semantic, and thus possibly not conceptual at all.

12. For an example of this, see the Superstudio proJect fuir kalabrien, the Trigon '69, catalogue, Kunstlerhaus, Graz, 4 Oktober bis 15 November, 1969.

13. This is a reviaed form of this comparison which was first made in my forthcoming article, "From Object to Relationship II," in Perspecta 13/14. This revision
now takes into account the elaboration of my taxonomy to include a conceptual-semantic and a conceptual-syntactic aapect. This replaces my former conceptual
category which was only syntactic.

This content downloaded from 52.166.116.5 on Sun, 21 May 2023 21:15:08 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 .14

.15

14. See Morris, Robert, "Beyond Objects," Artforum, Volume VII, No. 8, April, 1969, pp. 50-54.

15. Because the distinction between deep and surface, conceptual and perceptual have not been clearly made, there remains a confusion between aesthetic and
formal considerations. Thus Joseph Kosuth can attack 'formalist' art as essentially empty of conceptual levels, and that which does exist being supplied by their
critics. See footnote 11, p. 8, Karshan, Donald, Conceptual Art and Con-Aspects, The New York Cultural Center, New York, 1970. But further, the problem remains
as to what r6le these formal syntactic considerations must play if there is to be a conceptual aspect to an architecture in its realized form.
4 EISENMAN

This content downloaded from 52.166.116.5 on Sun, 21 May 2023 21:15:08 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
PETER D. EISENMAN

Mr. Eisenman is 38 years old. He is Director of the Institute for

Architecture and Urban Studies in N&w York City. He has taught at
Princeton University and at C.zbtde Ynvrsity in England. He also
holds a doctor's degree from e ersity. His architecture
and urban design projects ha e own the exhibitions, "The
New City: Architecture and Urban Renewal" and "Forty Under Forty,"
at the Museum of Modern Art, Y-k. At present, Mr. Eisenman is at
work on two books, "Syntactic ures: The Logic of Form in
Architecture" and "FromO Relato Giuseppe Terragni."

Copies of the art ta by wtn Mr. Eisenman at The

Institute for Architecture and Urban Studies, 8 West 40th Street,
New York City, 10018.

This content downloaded from 52.166.116.5 on Sun, 21 May 2023 21:15:08 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms