top of page















0-1: Background and Motivation for the Study

Departure from flatness

The question of the transformation of architecture in the modern era, i.e., how the liberation of modernity's desire to transform itself into social energy has affected and transformed architecture, is one that is often dismissed as a matter of course under the term "functionality. In fact, the process of architectural transformation is the essential issue at stake. The purpose of this paper is to explore the transformation of the form of existence of architecture in modern times, in other words, the transformation of the state of architecture, and to focus on the importance of the issues surrounding the interiority and exteriority of architecture.



0-2: Direction of Contemporary Architecture

In the modern era, an attempt was made to create the concept of volume as an architectural element by simplifying the surface covering the architectural form. This was done by Le Corbusier. The heavy surface with its attached meaning of decoration, which had been seen in architecture up to that time, was shifted to a light and plain surface, which was the result of the new modern technology of frame construction that opened up the massive masonry walls. Le Corbusier was an architect who organized the concept of architecture to usher in this new architectural era. He listed "volume, surface, plan, and trousse-regulateur" as the so-called "four principles of modern architecture.

Plan existed as a principle to control the gravity, function, and circulation of the architectural whole, while transe regulatore was used to harmonize the whole and its parts by means of number ratios in the surface. The plan, in particular, was emphasized to control the outburst of volume and surface by means of the number ratio principle, which governed everything in architecture. Such a direction was the orthodox flow of architecture in Western Europe since the Greek era, and it was also a manifestation of the Western will to make the world of the maximal and the minimal continuous through mathematical logic. However, as time progressed and the desires of society began to grow in size and complexity, the old principle of number ratio became impossible to maintain continuity between the internal and external worlds, and at the same time, its meaning began to be questioned. Modernism began to expose the problematic nature of man as a component within the social system, trivializing his existence. To confront these problems, a shift was required from the old mathematical logic that governed architecture. In other words, this was not only a problem for modernism itself, but also for the generative principle inherent in architecture itself. However, many architects at the time, unaware of the importance of such issues, simply attacked modernism without closely examining the important underlying problems. They advocated only rationalism and functionalism as targets of attack. Architectural historians and critics were obsessed with translating architecture into language, and they also devoted themselves to symbolic analysis, such as iconographic iconography of architecture. As a result, these important issues were never explored. As we will see later, Peter Eisenman (hereinafter referred to as "Eisenman"), criticizing such symbolic analysis, cuts off the form and meaning of architecture. By doing so, he transformed architecture from a symbol as a symbol to a symbol as an index, and tried to bury such symbolic iconographic analysis itself. He then attempted to lead architecture to a diagram, not a language, but a diagram.


Since the modern era, various movements have emerged in the architectural world to rethink modernity, but many architects have been surprisingly unaware that the fundamental reason for the emergence of such movements was the biased discontinuity of modernism. In other words, the world that modernism opened up demonstrated the impossibility of remaining within the traditional Western consciousness that secures the relationship between the inside and the outside, which corresponds to the universe and ensures the continuity between the maximal and the minimal worlds. As a result, architects had to rethink modernity and present a new worldview. It can be said that the architects of the time were unaware of this. Many architects believed only in the external logic of adaptation to the optimum solution, and simply strove to make externality a principle, without challenging such important issues.

However, two architects emerge who rethink modernity. Eisenman and Rem Koolhaas (hereafter referred to as Koolhaas).

In their architecture, two major directions can be observed. One is to inherit and reinforce modernism, and the other is to place more emphasis on the externalities of architecture. The idea is to open architecture to the social system outside of architecture, an external approach that may seem excessive, as in the architecture of Koolhaas, where even the desires of society are datamined and organized to generate architecture. This idea is an attempt to apply an extrinsic principle.

On the other hand, however, there is a direction that explores the interiority of architecture. As in the case of Eisenman, this is the direction that seeks to inherit and find within architecture itself the traditional and authentic power that architecture has inherited from the past. It is a gaze into the intrinsic principles that exist within architecture.


The theme of this paper is to deal with the issue of the difference between extrinsic and intrinsic approaches to architecture, and from this approach, to explore the issue of the transformation of subject and object, which is important in rethinking the modern age.

0-3: Research topic

Internality and externality

There are two themes of the study. The first concerns issues related to interiority and exteriority. The first is a study of two parallel directions in the flow of contemporary architecture, namely, the extrinsic and intrinsic approaches to architectural creation. The extrinsic approach is to ask the question, "How does architecture exist? (The external approach is the question "How is architecture? In other words, it is an approach that generates architecture from principles belonging to the outside of architecture. The intrinsic approach, on the other hand, asks the question, "What is architecture? (It begins with a reading of Eisenman's discourse. One can begin by reading Eisenman's discourse.

The other is also a projection of the problem of continuity between interiority and exteriority. That is, the relationship between the internal and external logics of architecture. In the traditional Western conception of architecture, architecture generated by an internal logic based on the number ratio has existed autonomously. With the advent of modernism, however, such autonomy has been dismantled, and the logic of the outside intrudes into the inside of architecture, creating a continuum between the outside and the inside. The quest for the dismantling of such autonomy seems to have become indispensable. In this paper, I would like to elucidate these two issues, the issue of interiority and exteriority themselves and the issue of continuity between interiority and exteriority.

Classically, Aristotle gave us the generative concepts of dunamis and energeia in response to the intrinsic problematics of architecture that originated in Plato's Idea. Since then, the controversy in Western architecture has developed in the oppositional balance between the forms represented by the Ideas and the principles that generate them. Among them, Immanuel Kant (hereafter referred to as Kant) placed importance on "form," while Goethe emphasized the emergent properties of things. In architecture, the typology of J. N. L. Durand (hereinafter referred to as Durand), the "type" of architecture as a building type became the principle of design, and classical architecture became dominated by "type" and "typology" instead of "order.

However, in the modern era, society underwent a major transformation with the Industrial Revolution, and the materials and structural forms that make up architecture, as well as the functions and scale of architecture required by society, have changed so drastically that conventional typology can no longer cope with the changes. Functionalism, represented by the phrase "form follows function," which is a symbol of modern architecture, has created architecture as a new building type on the one hand, and on the other hand, it has abstractly reduced the capacity in terms of scale and human behavior, such as lines of flow, uses of space, and number of people using the space, in order to generate architectural space. On the other hand, on the one hand, the architects created new elements for designing spaces by abstractly reducing the scale capacity and human behavior in generating architectural spaces, such as flow lines, uses of spaces, and the number of people who use them. In this respect, the ideas of functionalism and circulation in modern architecture are the germ of new concepts for extending architecture, and can be positioned as an extension of the extrinsic approach.

In this context, the positioning of the two approaches, intrinsic and extrinsic, seems to be the most important issue today.


As the scope of this paper, we will also focus on the changing perception of the continuity between interiority and exteriority in modern and contemporary architecture. To this end, this paper will take up Eisenman's doctoral dissertation, "The Formal Basis of Modern Architecture," as a generative theory of architecture based on a purely intrinsic logic. It will also focus on Koolhaas's architecture, in which programs are treated as social systems that define architecture from the outside. These will be examined, especially in contrast to the relationships among the elements of conventional architecture.

Eisenman's discourse draws on the philosophical theories of Immanuel Kant, Jacques Derrida, Gilles Deleuze (hereafter referred to as Derrida and Deleuze), and others. This is because, in the West, an attitude of questioning fundamental meaning is essential to generate as ARCHITECTURE. In this sense, Eisenman in particular was a radical architect and theorist. Therefore, although this paper will touch on these philosophical concepts, it is not an examination of philosophical issues. I would like to emphasize at the outset that I am focusing only on architectural issues, so that there will be no misunderstanding.


Eisenman's concept of architecture is difficult to understand. Even in Europe and the United States, it is not clearly understood. This is because Eisenman's architectural concept is not only complex, but also ambivalent. Therefore, although they have been discussed in polemic situations, their true meaning has not been understood. Although influenced by Derrida, he denies Derrida. Influenced by Deleuze, but denying Deleuze. This was partly due to the fact that he put a blur on his own position. Naturally, his architectural work is as complex, ambivalent, and obscure as his discourse. In addition to the ingenious precision of his logic, he was only recognized as an architect who produced esoteric discourses and works because of his excessive and radical problematics. As a result, it could be said that Eisenman's discovery of important issues in contemporary architecture has been hidden in the background. However, the direction he was heading in was one that was full of fertile ideas that are truly thought-provoking for our time. It is the purpose of this paper to clarify Eisenman's significant achievements in contemporary architecture by analyzing his works and discourses to sort out and bring to the surface his complex position.

0-4: Structure of this paper

In order to examine the transformation of the main concepts of architecture (subject, object) in the post-modern era, this paper focuses on the issues surrounding interiority and exteriority as seen through Eisenman's theoretical construction from his early analysis of modern architecture and his project as a practice, as follows CHAPTER 8 on his discussion and his own conception of architecture, and CONCLUSION.

In CHAPTER 1, as a cognitive aspect of Eisenman's theoretical construction, I intend to analyze the discourse and works of Le Corbusier, a leading architect of modern architecture, as the source of Eisenman's theory and the origin of the key concepts in the creation of architecture today.
The purpose is to reveal the ambivalence in Le Corbusier's discourse and work, to show that this ambivalence influenced later architects, and to identify the origins of new architectural concepts that have emerged since then. In other words, I will argue from my own perspective that Eisenman's and Koolhaas's methods of architectural production are linked to the visionary and ambivalent nature of Le Corbusier's discourse and work.

In CHAPTER 2, I will analyze and clarify Eisenman's attempt to break away from flatness by reading his doctoral dissertation, an analysis of modern architecture by Eisenman, and how he recognized modern architecture and developed it into his own theory, focusing on the concept of volume. In other words, Eisenman's attempt to break away from the flatness of his theory. In other words, Eisenman will show that in a series of works by Le Corbusier and others, he finds an ambivalent relationship between figure and ground by inversion, or in other words, a characteristic of "contradictory relationship" that goes beyond "static form". Furthermore, we will extract the "dynamic principle" from these works and show how he attempted to integrate the whole system as a diagram that would become the generative principle of architecture. This CHAPTER 2 is the core and the starting point of this paper, and is the subject of my own original discussion.

In the next two chapters, I will focus on the concept of diagram in Eisenman's works, including "Diagram Diaries" and other major works, and the early practical projects described in those works (up to the House Project, which was primarily an exploration of the concept of diagram as an interiority). In CHAPTER 3, I will analyze the central concept of the House Project and the application of the concept in practice, and analyze the relationship between the work and the discourse. In CHAPTER 4, we will focus on the analysis of Eisenman's discourse, scrutinize the concepts of Derrida and Deleuze, and touch on their influence, in order to further examine the significance of Eisenman's diagram. This is an attempt to further examine the significance of Eisenman's diagram. I will add my own reflections on the transformation of the concept of (subject, object), which is the subject of this paper.

In the next two CHAPTERs, I will discuss architectural concepts that seem to be located externally in Eisenman's theoretical construction and practice, not as direct influences, but as opposing positions, and by contrast, I will clarify the characteristics of Eisenman's architectural concepts.
CHAPTER 5 discusses Eisenman's positioning and perspective by contrast through the work of Mies van der Rohe (hereafter referred to as Mies), who was not the subject of Eisenman's analysis. Here, we present a different view from the conventional way of perceiving Mies, as his thinking opens up possibilities not only for minimalism, but also for programs.
CHAPTER 6 clarifies the architectural concepts of Koolhaas, the architect responsible for another aspect of the ambivalence of Le Corbusier's work, examines his differences with Eisenman, and presents an original viewpoint that the differences between the two will influence the direction of architecture in the next generation.

In the two subsequent CHAPTERs, further theoretical and practical extensions within Eisenman himself and their influence on architectural theory are analyzed.
CHAPTER 7 begins with a reading of the early project of externality in "Diagram Diaries" and analyzes the issues presented by Eisenman in the later stages of his career, providing an original reflection on the transformation of the concepts of subject, object, and context.
In CHAPTER 8, we will examine the position and evaluation of Eisenman's diagram from a perspective other than Eisenman's, focusing on the reading of some of the essays in ANY 23 "Diagram Work" (hereafter referred to as ANY 23), which is recognized as the earliest comprehensive discussion of diagram. The paper will examine the position and evaluation of Eisenman's diagram from perspectives other than Eisenman's. We will also read Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari's (hereinafter Deleuze/Guattari) concept of the "abstract machine," and show after analysis that Eisenman's diagram is an undifferentiated diagram of "structure" and "machine," and discuss and present the problems of the subsequent generation. Furthermore, as a perspective on post-Eisenman architecture, I will consider that the discourse of Sanford Kwinter (hereinafter referred to as "Kwinter") and the discourse of subsequent generations have led to a perspective on object-oriented ontology as a review of the relationship between subject and object, and present my own problematic I present a perspective that is continuous with my own problematic consciousness.
In CHAPTER 9, I examine my own architectural concept of the subject, which emerges as the next problematic extension of Eisenman's thinking in my own project, and examine the next approach and concept. It is about the transformation of the structural relationship between subject and object, and about the manifolds that can move. He also suggests the direction in which Le Corbusier's concept of volume, after passing through Eisenman's volumetric concept, becomes more particulate and possesses intelligence, in other words, the direction of the quantum metric (quantum generation) concept. Furthermore, he attempts to examine the relationship between his own concept of architecture and the changing nature of the object through discussions on the Western perception of the world, such as speculative realism and object-oriented ontology.
The structure of the CONCLUSION consists of a summary and discussion following each CHAPTER. After considering the influences of Eisenman's philosophy on his contemporaries, the book is organized around a summary of the diagram as an architectural concept in Eisenman's practice and a summary of the diagram in his discourse. It provides an overview of the transformation of the concepts of subject and object in the post-modern era, and considers the contemporary meaning and significance of Eisenman's diagram, as well as some of the issues that will emerge in the future.



0-5: Existing Research

Previous studies related to this research include those related to architectural programs, which have been a major trend in architectural planning and generation since typology. First, there are those that study how to form the program itself that generates the form, i.e., the algorithm or the architectural language itself; those that try to decipher the internal program from the spatial configuration; those that seek the type of relationship between the program and the spatial configuration; those that seek to derive from the transformation of the plan proposal in the design process of a famous architect the There are those that attempt to derive a generative relationship between the spatial configuration and the designer's intention, but none have comprehensively discussed the development process of architectural concepts by contrasting the intrinsic and extrinsic approaches.

There is no systematic study of Eisenman's work or architectural theory. In the doctoral dissertation of Bernard Kormos, who once worked in Eisenman's office, the relationship between Eisenman's theories and previous works from his doctoral dissertation to "Diagram Diaries," which is the subject of this study, is summarized as "Theories and Practices. The relationship between Eisenman's theory and previous works, from his doctoral dissertation to "Diagram Diaries," which is the subject of this study, is summarized in "Theories and Practices," but not from the perspective of examining the transformation of the main concepts of architecture (subject and object) in the post-modern period as in this paper. It only confirms the basic common understanding of Eisenman's critical nature and his positioning as ushering in the next era of computational design in architecture. In addition, the critical record of Eisenman's work, as discussed by Richard Joncas in a lecture at Stanford University, is summarized as a comprehensive assessment of Eisenman's work and design stance, as well as a comprehensive evaluation of it. Further into the relationship between Eisenman's theory and practice are the essays by Adriana Rossi, Stefano Corbo, and Jörg Greiter. Adriana Rossi's and Stefano Corbo's essays commonly refer to the concept of evolving forms as characterizing Eisenman's trajectory and offer only a general assessment that the trend was toward formalism, decomposition, deconstruction, and weak forms. In Jörg Greiter's discussion of the "death of the author" in 2008, the role of the author's exclusion in the negative aesthetics of Eisenman's architectural practice is a dialectic of reason and epistemological critique, a development that Eisenman's architectural theory constitutes an important contribution to an important architectural philosophy This approach is seen as an important contribution to Eisenman's philosophy of architecture. Such an approach is an interesting argument for a comprehensive understanding of Eisenman. The discussion of the "death of the author" is comparable to my own, but it was written 16 years after my 1992 discussion of the "dismantling of authorship" in Void Centers, which predates my discussion, and I feel that I have arrived at these findings too late. The details are discussed in the main paper.

As for Eisenman's previous work on the diagram, the debate on the diagram was raging in the late 1990s and early 2000s. Among these, ANY 23, "Diagram Work," published in 1998, was the first to summarize the concept of diagram in art and architecture at that time, which has been most cited in subsequent discussions of diagram. In parallel with Eisenman's discussion of diagram, each architect freely expresses his or her own thoughts on the diagram of architecture, and few of them are related to Eisenman's diagram. Those related to Eisenman are discussed and analyzed in CHAPTER 8. In addition, there is only a broad collection of a general historical overview of the discussion of the diagram in "The Diagram of Architecture" by Mark Garcia, which was systematically compiled on the diagram in 2010. Those related to Eisenman are discussed and analyzed in CHAPTER 8.

Since the purpose of this paper is to decipher the transformation of the main concept of architecture from the transformation of Eisenman's concept of diagram, it shall deal with the period before and after Eisenman's discussion of diagram. Therefore, ANY 23 will be treated as a discussion of the diagram discussed at the same time as Eisenman's diagram, and Robert E. Somol (hereinafter referred to as "Somol") and Sarah Whiten (hereinafter referred to as "Whiten") will be taken as a direct evaluation of Eisenman's diagram afterwards. The following is a direct evaluation of Eisenman's diagram. We also refer to "Diagrams of Diagrams" by Anthony Vidler (hereinafter referred to as Vidler) as a summary of the transformation of diagrams in architecture up to the time of Eisenman's "Diagram Diaries" in 1999, which is central to Eisenman's discussion of diagrams. The post-2010 discussion of diagrams includes Anthony Burke's four typologies of architectural diagrams and Hurley Doldiwanlioor's classification of the diagram concept as a descriptive and performative medium, as a classification by the different transitions of the diagram concept. The classification by Hurley Doldiwanliohl of the four types of architectural diagrams and the classification by Hurley Doldiwanliohl of the evolution of the diagram concept as a descriptive medium and a performance medium, as a response to the conceptual differences between the diagram of science and philosophy. Other articles by Helen Frischot and Sandra Sharank are also discussed as suggestive for the future of the diagram in architecture. As for criticism by architects contemporary to Eisenman, Raphael Moneo (hereafter referred to as "Moneo"), in his discussion of contemporary architectural theory, does not analyze Eisenman's diagram further, claiming that it is a personal view that only Eisenman himself can understand. In the paper by Mario Gandelsonas, it is analyzed in relation to the SUBJECT. Other papers in Japan include an outline of an analysis of Eisenman's architectural works, but none of them discuss the relationship between diagram and space generation, or Eisenman's concept of diagram.

There are numerous reviews on Koolhaas, but most of them are journalistic in nature, and there are no academic papers. Among them, Bert Roetsma's (hereinafter referred to as Roetsma) review finds continuity with Koolhaas' research in the tradition of data-based rational urban planning since the CIAM as the history of Dutch urban planning. In addition, based on Rotsma's review, Hajime Yatsuka's review further discusses the relationship between Koolhaas's design philosophy influenced by the linkage of the Russian avant-garde's social system change and the architectural movement. In particular, the discussion by Moneo captures the root of the relationship between Koolhaas's work and the research behind it, and is referenced in this report.

- On the Particularities of Japan - 

Both Eisenman and Koolhaas were not interested in Le Corbusier's aesthetics and largely ignored and did not inherit them. These heirs to Le Corbusier's perceptual considerations, i.e., taking directions such as the sophisticated treatment of light, were Japanese architects. In Japan, there is a tendency to overestimate the aesthetic aspects of Le Corbusier. Tadao Ando inherited and developed from Le Corbusier hints of the beauty of light and shadow. However, such an attitude does not show a glimpse of the attitude to open up the problems imposed on architecture to overcome modernity. The Japanese only emphasize practice over theory, and are unable to commit to the theoretical issues that Westerners have opened up. Behind this attitude lies the problem of defining architecture. Since the Meiji period, the Japanese have been at the mercy of the problems associated with the uniquely Japanese definition of "architecture," which was translated by Chuta Ito, rather than the one established by Arcée and Techne. They are unaware that architecture is more than just representation.


In today's Japan, where populism is at its height, with its focus on understandability, Eisenman is the opposite. Eisenman's discourse is esoteric, but in Japan, the very definition of architecture is even more esoteric because of the misunderstood backwardness of the term.

Eisenman was an architect who really explored the issues of contemporary architecture in depth. The issues that emerge from both his discourse and his work are often thought-provoking. Unfortunately, however, they are only superficially understood, and the important central points are seldom understood. There was a time when only Eisenman's esoteric words were spoken in a flurry of journalistic clamor, but there was little interest in the content of his work. In Japan, only Eisenman's words seemed fresh. The crossing between philosophy and architecture, the esoteric philosophical terminology, and the style of the Japanese architects of the time, who were creating poems that were almost like architectural theory, were all accepted. This encouraged people to try to verbalize architecture, and ironically, some people went in the opposite direction of Eisenman.


At the time, many Japanese architects were influenced by Eisenman's discourse and visual form, but most understood it only as a matter of superficial form. Instead, they talked about their own architecture in terms of the traditional Japanese posture as a confrontation with the advanced West, a habit peculiar to Japanese architects of the time. Especially in Japan, Eisenman's architecture was understood only superficially, as a visual manipulation of form. For many Japanese architects at the time, Eisenman was only recognized as one of the deconstructive architects, as a catabolism of collision of forms. It is regrettable that they remained with the superficial understanding that the collision of rectangular forms at different angles is avant-garde, and only moved in a practical direction rather than examining the essential theory. They did not see in Eisenman's discourse any suggestive ideas for new directions in contemporary architecture, which were only journalistic and superficial and hardly explored. The Japanese have a habit since the Meiji era of understanding these Western architectural theories only as aesthetic visual language and rushing to immediate practice. In the contemporary trend of computational design, centering on groups of students studying abroad, there is an obsession with and application of technical skills rather than verification of theory, and this seeming impatience to keep up with trends is a result of the Japanese habit since the Meiji period. The position of this paper is to examine the transition of architectural concepts since the modern era, not from the viewpoint of such technical application, but from the viewpoint of architectural theory, which questions the existence of architecture.

0-6: On Eisenman's writings, which are the main subject of this paper

This paper is based on Eisenman's conception of interiority and exteriority. The first direct reference to the internality and externality is "Diagram Diaries," published in 1999, which is Eisenman's first dissertation and the starting point of his theory building. Eisenman's own reflection on his work and theory from his doctoral dissertation up to that time. In particular, it looks at Eisenman's own works and theories from the perspective of "diagram," a term that has been widely discussed since around that time, and is recognized as Eisenman's most important diagram theory.
His doctoral dissertation, which serves as a direct background to Eisenman's diagram theory, is recognized as an original and sophisticated analysis of major modern architectural works that takes a critical look at the symbolic architectural theories that had been developed up to that point.

Readings of these two works form the main flow of this dissertation. The following is an outline of the structure of these two works.



- Eisenman's doctoral dissertation (his 1963 thesis, "The Formal Basis of Modern Architecture") -

Eisenman's doctoral dissertation consists of five chapters, the introduction and the first chapter of which is entitled "Form in Relation to Architecture" and is mainly concerned with the discussion of form in modern architecture, citing Rudolf Whitkauer ("Whitkauer") and Colin Lowe ("Lowe"). The book cites Rudolf Whitkauer (hereinafter referred to as Whitkauer) and Colin Rowe (hereinafter referred to as Rowe) to explain the superiority of form, stating that "architecture is essentially about giving form (as an element in itself) to intention, function, structure and workmanship. Chapter 2, "The Properties of Generic Architectural Form," builds on the previous chapter by analyzing Le Corbusier and other modern architects in an attempt to explain the attributes of generic form in architecture in an abstract three-dimensional diagram. Starting from Le Corbusier's four principles, we propose to evolve the concept of volume and view volume as form. Among them are the absolute horizontal plane that appears in modern architecture, the Cartesian grid, the relationship between grid and volume, and the characteristics of movement and circulation, surface, and mass. Chapter 3, "Development of Formal Systems," refers to systems in which specific forms are generated based on the generic form attributes presented in the previous chapter, and the existence of a syntax that is central to the system and the examples of several modern architectural The relationship between the development of the system and the syntax is shown. It also summarizes the analysis of specific cases in the next chapter, which is the framework of Eisenman's analysis of the form system by modern architecture. Chapter 4, "Analyses of Formal Systems," provides a detailed analysis of specific works by Le Corbusier, Frank Lloyd Wright, Alvar Aalto, and Giuseppe Terrani (hereafter referred to as Wright, Aalto, and Terrani) based on the form system logically developed in the previous chapter. The analysis is provided in Chapter 5, "Closed-End". In Chapter 5, "Closed-Ended and Open-Ended Theory," the author, through a historical overview of architectural theories beginning with the Renaissance, categorizes each theory into "closed-ended theories" and "open-ended theories," suggesting that his theory is an open theory that generates form. He suggests that his theory is an open theory that generates form.

- Composition of "Diagram Diaries” -

This book, published in 1999, is a collection of Eisenman's works up to that time, juxtaposed with texts of discussions on diagram. The works are included in the center of the book as an index, and the index is bordered on the front and back by discussions of interiority and exteriority, as well as images.

The book opens with Somol's contribution, "The Diagrammatic Basis of Contemporary Architecture," followed by Eisenman's text, "An Original Scene of Writing," which introduces the origins of the diagram and its relationship to the ideas of Deleuze and Derrida. The text "An Original Scene of Writing" by Eisenman presents the diagram as an écriture through the origin of the diagram and the ideas of Deleuze and Derrida, and defines Eisenman's conception of the diagram in architecture. In the following "Diagrams of Anteriority," the historical background of the relationship between anteriority, interiority, and diagrams is discussed. In "Diagrams of Interiority," grids, cubes, el-forms, and bars are subtitled as interiority in architecture, and the actual use of diagrams is described from his doctoral thesis to the House Project. The development of the actual use of diagrams from his doctoral dissertation to the House Project is described.

The second half, "Diagrams of Exteriority," is subtitled Site, Texts, Mathematics, and Science as external references and describes how they were used in the corresponding works.




Finally, the text entitled "The Diagram and the Becoming Unmotivated of the Sign" defines the concept of trace in architecture, from the motivated relationship between the sign and the signifie to Derrida's problems of sign and presence, parole and écriture. The text defines the concept of "trace" (trace) in architecture.


The translated parts of the text, which are considered to be particularly important, are written both in the original English and in the translated text, with the translated text in italics to distinguish it from the text.

0-7: Terminology

The terminology used in this paper is based on general concepts that are commonly used and considered inappropriate for translation into Japanese, as well as Eisenman's original concepts, and other foreign concept words and names of foreigners are written in katakana.

The following are some of Eisenman's original terms and philosophical concepts that are considered important in this paper.

A counterpart to exteriority, interiority refers to both what is inside and what exists inside. Here, in particular, it is a synchronic concept that articulates the interiority of the architecture and all the accumulated prior knowledge that exists within the interior of the architecture.

EXTERIORITY (externality, exteriority)
Indicates that which is external to interiority and that which exists outside of interiority. In Eisenman's exploration of exteriority in the diagram, site, texts, mathematics, science, etc. are external references.

A diachronic concept that refers to the totality of knowledge that has produced innovative situations throughout history.

A diagram is not a plan, not a static entity, but a series of energies that flow over the interiority and exteriority of architecture as the potential to create new forms. It is a potential means of articulating the interiority of architecture.
An unfixed expression that exists prior to standardization, as opposed to a fixed typology that is present in the object as oppression.


A term coined by Eisenman as an in-between, non-standardized and unfixed state of being, as opposed to the dichotomy of presence and absence proposed by Derrida.

A concept that questions the dichotomous recognition premise of subject-object and object-object, and questions the relationship between the two.

Form is distinguished from figure and shape, which are used for visually visible forms, and is used in a sense closer to form than just as something that is visually visible (form).

form system
A system consisting of vocabulary and syntax, like a language, in which the three-dimensional form is defined by the concept of volume.

A three-dimensional form that is distinct from space, which has no motivation, and is within the category of space, but has a dynamic character.

A neutral, static field without motivation or internal energy, from which volume is extracted by volumetric.

This is a method of providing volume as the basis of architectural expression, and is considered to include the mass-surface system and the movement system.

The dynamic nature of volume, which includes the concepts of interval and circulation, which are compared to the concept of time.

generic form
A Platonic form that has a universal character, recognizing transcendence beyond aesthetic preferences.

specific form (particularized form)
A specific form is a transformation or alteration of a generic form.

linear form
A category of generic form that has directionality as an inherent dynamic of form.

centroidal form
A category of generic form that has centrality as an inherent dynamic of form.

deep structure
The essence of the relationship of clear expression to the interiority of architecture.

Unlike painting or sculpture, architecture has the usefulness of a tool that is used directly by people.

In linguistics, iconicity refers to the property of "language reflecting the world," indicating that there is some relationship between form and meaning. Eisenman says that there is a difference between painting, sculpture, and architecture, and that the uniqueness of architecture lies in the fact that instrumentality intervenes between form and meaning. Furthermore, Eisenman rejects such iconicity as something that rigidifies the relationship between form and meaning and works oppressively, and he orients the diagram of architecture by shifting from the icon to a generative index.

In order to overcome the materiality of the object, its function and meaning, it is reduced to the forms of line, plane, and volume, thereby erasing its materiality and the distinction between columns and walls as symbols. This concept of walliness is defined as the difference between painting and sculpture, in contrast to flatness. A term coined by Eisenman.

The form of a cube with a similar cube missing from one point of the cube; the form given as an initial condition in the search for exteriority as a result of the search for interiority.

Unlike Deleuze's superimposition, this term refers to a superposition in which there is no hierarchy and everything can be viewed from a bird's eye view. A term coined by Eisenman.

A place that emerges as a motivated externality rather than a concrete function or neutral externality; not an object, but an excess state as a dense sequence of markings in space.

Not a concrete site where architecture is located, but a field where architecture is located, and the most initial condition in the exploration of architectural externality.
ground (earth, ground)
Eisenman extends the interiority of architecture based on the premise that place and ground can be the basis for a diagram because of the motivational effect they have. Eisenman expands the interiority of architecture based on the premise that place and ground can be the basis for a diagram. By conceptualizing the surface of the ground as an artificially created surface, he attempts to overcome the traditional concept of figure and ground by making it an object of manipulation in the same way as architecture.

To participate in historicity, not as a neutral accumulation of events, but with the directional affect of desire.

Italicized to distinguish Derrida's concept of chora from Eisenman's concept.
The difference between Derrida's and Plato's interpretation of Timaeus' definition of chora as the interrelationship of container/ contained, place/field, and frame/object as three-dimensional opposites. A redefinition in architecture.

Mark / marking
A term peculiar to Eisenman that corresponds to a fixed form. The transition to some kind of physical existence, such as the application of aesthetic elements such as proportions and number ratios, or the division by functional elements.

An imprint on a receptacle by a motivated active object.
In Derrida's concept of the receptacle, he only considers the concept of imprint, which is the trace of an action exerted on the receptacle by an object.

In La Villette's project, the object pressed into the mold simply left an imprint in the mold. After Casa Guardiola, the idea of trace was newly introduced to include the trace of the influence exerted from the receptor to the active object.

A receptacle that not only changes the shape of other objects without the presence of its own substance, but also has the potential to continuously change shape.

Considered as an abstraction of "ground," it is receptive to transformation and metamorphosis, like a receptacle, and is manifested by imprint and trace.
Unlike collage, where there is a clear distinction between the new and the old, graft is a seamless connection where the old and the new become an amalgam and the boundaries or frames are erased.

the fold / folding / fold
The fold provides a smooth depth without ground, whereas superposition holds figure and ground at the same time. Origami is non-linear and simultaneous as opposed to linear, grafting between old and new, giving new dimensions to the old and new edges with smooth transitions.

Interpreting Deleuze's concept of objectile (object), a group of objects as a temporal modulation that signifies the continuous change of matter, rather than a fixed and permanent object. In this case, time is characterized through the mediation of folds as a mixture of simultaneous, synchronic, and diachronic time, rather than linearly flowing time.

Koolhaas' use of event differs from Eisenman's concept of event above. Koolhaas sees event as the possibility of an unexpected story occurring through the juxtaposition of fragmented individual programs.

A kind of motivation to assume interiority and exteriority for the sake of architectural uniqueness, to create repetition of difference, and to resist standardization and typification, which manifests itself as displacement and destabilization.

bottom of page