CLOAK AND DAGGER THEORY

Abstract

The architectural writings of Peter Eisenman tend to rely heavily on jargon and polemic statements. Even when Eisenman defines words for his readers, he uses terminology which itself requires some form of clarification. This has frustrated debate about his architecture because first, the words can mean at the same time different things to different people and second, the designs become ‘moving targets’ which are impervious to critical appraisal since the debate is conducted on Eisenman’s own illdefined terms rather than on any objective or analytical basis. It has been even suggested by Evans that this is a deliberate ploy on Eisenman’s part to avoid such examination (Evans, 1992). The objective of this paper is to shift the focus of the debate away from his theoretical writings to the architectural objects themselves. Formal and spatial analysis of eight Peter Eisenman houses has been conducted. Based on this analysis, it is suggested that the apparent complex differentiations of form in 2 and 3 dimensions underlying Eisenman’s designs leads to a distinctive and pervasive spatial homogeneity in each house - not spatial differentiation as has been implied. This results in each house being characterised by a well-defined genotype which incorporates the rigid separation of public and private function spaces and the integrating of the houses through stair and transition spaces. It is suggested that this occurs despite the rather elegant and simple formal rules of composition discernible in the design of the houses.