OTHER GEOMETRIES, John Rajchman.

Today, armed with computers, architects want to depart from the orthogonal and the rectilinear . But what does this voyage outside the orthogonal in fact allow us to do; how does it affect us? We can take as a example the Aronoff Center, designed by Peter Eisenman in 1996. The sinuous, skew geometries of the connective tissue of this work apparently introduce a sort of “affective space” of unanticipated encounter and connection, letting people see and be seen from odd angles, creating momentary little worlds. It probably would not have been possible using nice Corbusian right angles or within the larger aegis of the concinnitas of Albertian space; it shows that great classical convention to be strangely constricting or limiting. Geometry is thus something more than a simple decoration or sculptural form given to a calm external eye; forms are used for other aims, to affect us in other ways. That in any case is the ambition. The question is put by the author in this way: How can “other geometries” help change the very sense of “constructible space” and so of what architecture may yet do? He tries to get at this question and this ambition through a brief excursion into some related philosophical problems about form and geometry, which might in turn take us back to architecture and this architect.

Figure 1. Aronoff Center for Design and Art. University of Cincinnatti. Ohio.Peter Eisenman. 1996.

After this reading, I understand by Other Geometry of built space, the one which doesn’t depart from abstractions based on isolating form and celebrating the purity of geometrical figures like square, circle or triangle, in order to insert them in a pre-established system. On the contrary, other geometry –born from alternative mathematics – is given by informal diagrams or maps that incorporate an element of free indetermination. It loosens up the spatial construction, so it becomes less “systematic” or in other words, more incomplete or formless. Its shapes or figures become more singular, more original and free to behave in less predictable ways, so they can affect us in less direct lines.

I think that the aim of this text is to let us know what can be done with the development of such geometries by the use of computer and designing software. We can be aware or conscious of the possibilities we have when we design under these principles and don’t design a building just because we want to create a “never seen building”, or just because we want to be transgressive with our times. With these geometries we have the possibility to create spaces that deal with sensations and bodies, where the users can interact with each other and in many different ways, creating more flexible and unpredictable environments.

Here are some other examples about this topic:

Figure 2. Kunsthaus Graz, Austria. Cook/Fournier. 2002-2003

Figure 3. Mur Island Project, Graz, Austria. Vito Acconci. 2003.


Figure 4. Blur Building. Expo 2002. Yverdon - les - Bains, Switzerland. Diller + Scofidio. 2000-2002.