(Student’s Full Name)
In Robin Evans’s “In Front of lines that leave Nothing Behind,” the writer argues that architectural reviewers tend to perceive architecture as forms of “iconology” that needs to be examined to determine the “meaning” that exists “behind, beneath, or within” the “subjects” that they are critiquing (482). Furthermore, Evans explains that the “critic” or architectural reviewer often goes in “search of origins, essences, intentions, motives, causes” of the “appearances” presented by an architectural design (482). However, one may not always depend on the “architect’s” “intention” to “orient” his work “towards us,” especially as it relates to an architectural drawing (Evans 483). Therefore, it may not always seem easy to ascertain the “causes” of an architectural drawing or sketch (Evans 483). Although there is merit to the argument presented by Evans, who in reference to Daniel Libeskind’s Chamber Works, illustrates that it is often difficult to detect the intentions of the architect in his architectural sketches or drawings, the building itself still can convey a rhetorical message that can be perceived, if not totally deciphered, by a critic.
Evans explains that while closely examining Libeskind’s Chamber Works, the “energy” present within the lines are difficult to describe since they are uninfluenced by “human qualities” (483). The writer explains that a “drawn line” will typically show signs that person who drew it as either “febrile,” “agitated,” “delicate,” “rapid” or “hesitant” (Evans 483). However, an architectural drawing does not provide such clues. This is because an architectural drawing is made with “architectural instruments” (Evans 483). Therefore, it is because of this fact that it is difficult to mentally “pass through and beyond the drawings” (Evans 483). Nevertheless, Evans still argues that architectural critics, such as Hejduk, Rossi, and Eisenman, are able to perceive that Libeskind’s Chamber Works has “hidden meaning” in them (484). Evans suggests that these critics are fabricating “virtual meanings for the drawings” to symbolize something “they know” that they “cannot find” (484).
Although there is merit to this argument, a critic is still able to provide what he believes to be the message that is being conveyed by an architectural or art work if he can find the evidence to support his argument. Even Evans himself contends that although Libeskind’s Chamber Works did not convey a message of either “unity” or “fragmentation” there is “one transmitted message comes through clearly” by viewing the drawings as a whole rather than individually (486). Evans explain that the manner in which the drawings are structured emphasize numerical or “integral meaning” (487). The writer explains that Libeskind’s ability to remove his drawings from “unity,” “fragmentation,” “figure” or “space” while focusing on the significance of numbers, particularly as it relates to “Pythagorean mathematics,” shows that mathematics or the study of numbers does not have any “preordained affinity with nature” (Evans 485; 487). Evans explains that mathematics has the ability to run “in step with nature,” which demonstrates “unity,” “fragmentation,” “figure,” and “space,” but it can also traverse into the realm of the “unreal” (Evans 485; 487). This realm is celebrated by Libeskind’s drawings, which appear to be removed from “unity,” “fragmentation,” “figure,” and “space” (Evans 485; 487). Therefore, it can be argued that Libeskind is conveying the message that architecture need follow the conventions or rules of mathematics.
In conclusion, Evans is correct to contend that architectural drawings do not always easily expose the intentions of the architect since they are drawn only by the human hand, but “architectural instruments” are used to create these drawings (Evans 483). Nevertheless, it is still possible to decipher meanings from architectural drawings, even ones that appear enigmatic or mysterious as Libeskind’s Chamber Works. Evans himself has found that Libeskind’s Chamber Works appear to be conveying the message that mathematics does not always follow or mimic nature or the real. Libeskind’s drawings appear to suggest that architecture need not follow or strictly adhere to set of rules informed by mathematical or other data. Libeskind’s drawings appear to imply that the artistic vision is most important in an architectural work rather than numerical or other data.
Work Cited
Evans, Robin. “In Front of Lines that Leave Nothing Behind.” Architecture Theory since 1968. Ed. K. Michael Hays. Cambridge, Mass: MIT, 1998. Print.
