Summary of La Maison Dom-ino

by: Peter Eisenman

Peter Eisenman’s essay begins by asking us several important questions: What separates architecture from geometry, sculpture, and “mere building.”? He also asks what makes Modernism modern, and are we interpreting it through the right lens?

Eisenman says that the plan and section are the records of when architecture is changing. They record the “physical manifestations of developing formal strategies made possible by new conceptions of notation and representation.” The elevation on the other hand, usually reflects only stylistic changes, which can be pasted onto any plan.

The change to the free plan in La Maison Dom-ino then, is said to be the birth of Modern Architecture. Eisenman says that this is not necessarily so. Architects, historians, and critiques still view Modernism in architecture through classical sensibilities. This could be the result of interpretation, or perhaps because Modernism in architecture was not actually so “modern”, as compared to the other arts undergoing a similar change.

Shifts in the other arts are noted by the “objects tendency to be self-referential.” Meaning, “how the object reveals its conditions of being and its manner of coming into being; and how it is recorded.”

Eisenman says that the focus on the free plan and the free façade has obscured what is truly Modernist about La Maison Dom-ino: its aspects as a self-referential sign, its “existence as an architecture about architecture.” The slabs, columns, stairs, and footings are all reinforcing the statement. “They function, but at the same time they overcome function.” This is what separates architecture from geometry and building. It is separate from sculpture because sculpture has no use or “wallness”, and therefore it does not have to overcome these functions.

I think Eisenman’s condition of architecture as opposed to building, geometry, and sculpture is a good one. But is the presence of the sign what really separates Modernism from other changes? I am not so sure, and I may be more confused about what makes Modern architecture “modern” than ever. I think you could argue the existence of the “self-referential sign” long before Modernism.

In sculpture, we can look at Donatello’s Mary Magdalene. It is a sculpture very unlike his previous work in its expressionism. It is still telling the story of Mary Magdalene, but it is also telling the story about the sculpture itself. It is made of wood, and record of how the artist carved and sculpted the work is evident in itself. It is not smoothed away as in other works. So Donatello may be making a statement about the condition of the wood itself.

Another example is the Laurentian Library staircase designed by Michelangelo. The staircase has been meticulously studied by architects and historians because of its uniqueness. Some call it one of the first modern spaces. If so, is the staircase self-referential? Certainly it is attempting to overcome the function of a staircase. I think it could be argued either way, but in both cases is the supposed sign being weighed down by the history of what happened before or after the invention of this staircase?

What about Brunelleschi’s dome on the Florence Cathedral? It is more than “mere building” because it strives to exist beyond the function of sheltering. We know that Brunelleschi was not a deeply religious man, nor did he care too much about money. His reasons were o big the biggest dome, and perhaps to overcome the idea of the dome itself. Change what could be done with it.

Again, it could be argued either way. I think these examples at least challenge the presence of the sign before Modernism. Obviously, Peter Eisenman knows all of these examples better than I do and he does not include them. So there must be something more to his definition of a “sign” than is evidenced in the essay.

-brian choquette