Perspektive, Axonometrie

Schneider’s article makes a good case not only in defining a major fault in architectural theory, but also in organizing a clear delineation between elements of architectural representation and their relationship to reality, something architects are often unwilling to do. He attributes confusion in language to a kind of “linguistic imperialism,” which I would think results from the position of architectural discourse on the edge of the academy. Because it constantly straddles the border between intellect and material construction, theorists often fall into the trap of overly codifying language as a means of sounding more important.

It’s actually simple, according to Schneider. An axonometric puts the object to advantage, perspective the perceived viewer. Yet both are completely constructed representations of an idea for a project, something that could be built, but would never look like the drawings that bring it into form. So perhaps there is some complexity there. What I think Schneider’s categorization really does is it opens up an avenue for parallel understanding of a project. And this is illustrated in OMA’s story about a day in the life of some Universal employees. The use of perspective to tell a personal story of relationships complements a more diagrammatic approach to the process of development and the conceptual underpinnings of the building.

The modeled story highlights that constructed nature of architectural representation. It gives the readers a chance to imagine what could be without ever making them believe that it is true, or final.