Peter Versus Peter: Eisenman And Zumthor's

Theoretical Throwdown
architizer.com /blog/peter-versus-peter/
AJ Artemel
Peter Eisenman and Peter Zumthor are among the titans of architecture, both known for their iconic work
and their distinctive personalities. Eisenman, of course, has the longer track record, having emerged into
notoriety as early as the 1960s with his strong interest in architecture theory, his personal ties to such
influential figures as Colin Rowe and Philip Johnson, and his series of deconstructivist houses. Zumthor,
on the other hand, has pursued a quieter track to fame; his office is based in a small Swiss village, and he
only rose to prominence in the late 1990s, with his Thermal Baths in Vals. Today, these two figures are
perhaps best positioned to make a lasting impact on the course of the professions development in
academia and practice.
However, though these two Peters have garnered the respect of manyfrom within the architecture world
as well as beyond itthey wont necessarily be working together any time soon. Or everif their history of
slinging sly disdain at each other is anything to go by. In their high-profile disses, both work and
methodology are fair game.
Save this image to a collection

Save this image to a collection

Peter Eisenman's Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe (top) and Peter Zumthor's Steilneset
memorial to the victims of witch trials (bottom). Images via here and here.
What do they say about each other exactly? Well, in an interview with Iman Ansari earlier this year,
Eisenman stated, Im not interested in Peter Zumthors work or people who spend their time worrying
about the details or the the grain of wood on one side or the color of the material on the surface, etc. I
couldnt care less.
Alright, so Eisenman is not impressed by Zumthors architecture; what does Zumthor think of Eisenmans?
In an interview with Icon Magazine, he talks about the Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe in Berlin:
When I look at Eisenmans monument it makes me so angry. Its still a block without a general, obstacles
which could cause other aggressions.
As far as feuds go, this one seems fairly mild so far. This is because Peter and Peter speak a sort of
theoretical code, attacking each others interests, design processes, and philosophies, without leveling
personal accusations. They disagree fundamentally on the purpose of architecture and how best to realize
it, a disagreement stemming from a conflict deeply imbedded in the contemporary practice of architecture
itself. What can seem personal is in fact the result of a major clash of ideologies in the discipline, a clash in
which Eisenman and Zumthor are team captains rather than completely self-contained antagonists.
Save this image to a collection

Save this image to a collection

Zumthor's Kolumba Museum (top) and Eisenman's Galicia City of Culture (bottom). Images via here and
here.
What is this architectural identity crisis? It is the battle between phenomenology and autonomy, emotion
and rationality, between materiality and concept, between being in the world and transcending it.
Though the distinction between the two approaches goes back to Kant and the 18th century, the battle
came into architectural discourse at the twilight of High Modernism and the beginning of the postmodern
era. Thinkers such as Christian Norberg-Schulz began to apply the phenomenological ideas of Husserl and
Heidegger to architecture as a reaction against the perceived failures of the Positivist and Structuralist
models guiding Modernism. The counter-reaction was the emergence of an architecture firmly based in
conceptuality and Post-structuralist theories led by none other than Peter Eisenman.
These camps deserve further untangling in order to understand why the two Peters would delve into the
world of the diss. According to Kants philosophy, things have two modes of existing: the phenomenal thing
is that which is experienced by our senses, while the noumenal thing is that which exists outside of our
experience (what the thing truly is by itself); the side effect of this is that humans can only know the
phenomenal world because we can only experience things with our senses. Most 20th century
philosophers attempt to get at the noumenal world, using linguistics and rational thought as a means to
access some sort of truth (logic and language do not necessarily depend on the senses to function).
Philosophers such as Husserl, however, decided that the phenomenal world would suffice as a realm of
investigation.
Save this image to a collection

Save this image to a collection

Zumthor's Serpentine Pavilion and Eisenman's House III. Images via here and here.
In architecture, the conceptual model sees architecture as a practice to be undertaken for its own sake
whether as drawings or built work, whereas many phenomenologists, Zumthor included, see buildings as
things that interact with and participate in human sensory experience. In the aforementioned interview,
Eisenman states, If there is a debate in architecture today, the lasting debate is between architecture as a
conceptual, cultural, and intellectual enterprise and architecture as a phenomenological enterprisethat is,
the experience of the subject in architecture, the experience of materiality, of light, of color, of space, and
etc. I have always been on the side opposed to phenomenology.
Zumthor, for his part, is equally dismissive of conceptual architecture. Architecture is something for living,
not a language. My mother wants a house for living, not a language. It isnt possible to live in a language,
he writes in an interview with Marco Masetti. In Italy, but also in the United States, there are academic
architects who remain out of the market. Professors that maybe havent built more than a garage, but they
talk very well.
Save this image to a collection

Save this image to a collection

Eisenman's analytical drawings and Zumthor's expressive sketches. Images via here and here.
Even their drawings participate in the argument: Eisenman never uses perspective, preferring the
axonometric projection for its ostensible objectivity. To him, the perspective is compromised by its
subjectivity; it shows a single point of view that will be experienced differently for every viewer. The
perspective cannot be talked about because it is from a vantage point that can never be held in common.
Zumthor, on the other hand, attempts to evoke these same subjective qualities in his drawing, getting the
viewer to intuit the quality of the spaces.
The results of this debate? Perhaps not much: most in academia have taken sides, while most outside
dont know the debate exists. Both positions, and both Peters, produce valuable work in the form of
buildings, drawings, essays, and ideas. But insofar as architecture can have any impact on humanitys
search for truth and meaning, these discussions remain of paramount importance, perhaps removed from
day-to-day practice, but certainly revisited in the quiet hours of the night. To conclude with Eisenman, The
real architecture only exists in the drawings. The real building exists outside the drawings. The difference
here is that architecture and building are not the same.