Art has traditionally been used to act as a means through which various messages are conveyed. The ability of an artist is often gauged through the capacity to communicate a given message effectively through his/her piece of art. Architecture is no different, with architectural work being used to send messages of their own. Gandelsonas and Eisenman make an attempt to explain how architects can broaden the scope of architectural work from emphasizing on functionality and aesthetics to being a medium of communication.
According to Eisenman, the intersection of semiotics and architecture comes with the effort of finding a balance between communication and functionality of architectural work (Eisenman 238). Traditionally, architectural work has been gauged in regards to the utility. To this end, architects attempt to employ their skills to come up with buildings that satisfy the needs of the people. According to Eisenman, however, architectural work can go above functionality. Architects have the ability to transform buildings into tools of communication.
An important aspect here is that buildings can be viewed as text (Eisenman 237). Architectural work, therefore, can be used to come up with a form of language, that is then used to convey various messages. Eisenman argues that conventional practice in other disciplines sees a text as a representation of reality. The same concept can be applied in architecture, where architectural work is converted into text which is then used in communication (Eisenman 238). The implication here is that semiotics as it applies to architecture looks into how buildings can be used as symbols and texts, in an attempt to convey various messages. A key factor that helps the integration of semiotics into architectural practice is modernism. According to Eisenman, new approaches to architecture provide a variety of means through which art is conceived (Eisenman 238). To this end, there is enough room in which architects can navigate in transforming buildings into texts and symbols for sending various messages.
The common theme that appears from the texts by Gandelsonas and Eisenman is the ability architectural work has to transcend from functionality to other aspects such as communication. Gandelsonas points out that combining the concept of semiotics into an architectural work enables architectural work to achieve a high level of architectural independence (2345678). Eisenman introduces the concept of “cardboard architecture” which provides a framework for understanding the intersection of semiotics and architecture (Eisenman 234). Here, the author notes that architectural work needs to place less emphasis on function and aesthetics but more on symbols. Gandelsonas agrees with this proposition, by supporting the use of buildings as symbols that can be used to convey a variety of messages (Gandelsonas 119). According to him, however, the two aspects of functionality and rhetoric can be simply fused together to provide a linguistic twist to architecture.
The modernist approach to architecture, as pointed out by the articles by Gandelsonas and Eisenman can move architecture from the single-front emphasis on functionality and aesthetics to other aspects such as communication. Conventionally, buildings are used to convey a given message, but these authors suggest that buildings in themselves can be symbols or texts. To this end, buildings can be used to form some form of a language, which conveys different messages to the users. The implication here is that progressive architectural work will not only look into ensuring that structures serve their intended functions, but also act as a means of communication. With buildings forming a language, multiple opportunities for interpretation by the users are availed. By using semiotics, an architect can combine both functionality and rhetoric in their work.
Works Cited
Eisenman, Peter. “Post-Functionalism. ” Architecture Theory since 1968. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, 1998. Print.
Gandelsonas, Mario. “Linguistics in Architecture. ” Architecture Theory since 1968. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, 1998. Print.
