Architects John Hejduk and Peter Eisenman were members of the “New York Five” and of the famous late modernist group, the “Whites.” Early in their careers, both Hejduk and Eisenman proposed that form or shape (the aesthetics of architecture) was more important than program (the function of architecture) and they designed experimental houses to demonstrate this. The present article uses the computational fractal method to analyze 78 design drawings to develop a mathematical description of the visual complexity of five early domestic designs by each architect. These data will provide an important basis for empirical comparisons of buildings using characteristic visual dimensions. Through this process it is possible to test a variety of hypotheses about the visual and formal qualities of both architects' works. Among the article's conclusions are that the mathematical data typically supports both architect's claims about the formal properties of their designs while challenging several assumptions about scale and Deconstructivist architecture.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BarnsleyM. F. (1988). Fractals everywhere. Boston, MA: Academic Press.
2.
BechhoeferW., & ApplebyM. (1997). Fractals, music and vernacular architecture: An experiment in contextual design. Critical Methodologies in the Study of Traditional Environments, 97, 1–33.
3.
BovillC. (1996). Fractal geometry in architecture and design. Design science collection. Boston, MA: Birkhäuser.
4.
Burkle-ElizondoG., & Valdez-CepedaR. D. (2006). Fractal analysis of Mesoamerican pyramids. Nonlinear Dynamics, Psychology, and Life Sciences, 10, 105–122.
5.
CassaraS. (2006). Peter Eisenman.London, UK: Feints, Thames and Hudson.
6.
ChalupS. K., & OstwaldM. J. (2009). Anthropocentric and biocybernetic computing for analysing the architectural design of house façades and cityscapes. Design Principles and Practices: An International Journal, 3, 66–80.
7.
ChuangS., & HendersonM. R. (1990). Three-dimensional shape pattern recognition using vertex classification and the vertex-edge graph. Computer-Aided Design, 22, 377–387.
8.
CromptonA., & BrownF. (2008). A statistical examination of visual depth in building elevations. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 35, 337–348.
9.
DavidsonC. (2006). Tracing Eisenman.London, UK: Thames and Hudson.
10.
DobneyS. (1995). Eisenman architects: Selected and current works.Mulgrave, Victoria, Australia: Images Publishing Group.
11.
EisenmanP. (1979a). Preface. In John Hejduk, 7 houses: January 22 to February 16, 1980. New York, NY: Institute for Architecture and Urban Studies.
12.
EisenmanP. (1979b). In my father's house are many mansions. In John Hejduk, 7 houses: January 22 to February 16, 1980 (pp. 9–20). New York, NY: Institute for Architecture and Urban Studies.
EisenmanP. (2004b). Tracing Eisenman.New York, NY: Rizzoli.
15.
EisenmanP.DobneyS., & ArchitectsE. (1996). Eisenman architects: Selected and current works. Mulgrave, Vic.: Images Pub. Group.
16.
EisenmanP.KraussR. E., & TafuriM. (1987). Houses of cards. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
17.
Foroutan-PourK.DutilleulP., & SmithD. L. (1999). Advances in the implementation of the box-counting method of fractal dimension estimation. Applied Mathematics and Computation, 105, 195–210.
18.
FramptonK. (1972). Notes from underground. Artforum, 10, 40–46.
19.
GeroJ. S., & DamskiJ. (1999). Feature-based qualitative modeling of objects. In AugenbroeG. & EastmanC. (Eds.), Computers in building (pp. 309–320). Boston, MA: Kluwer.
20.
GeroJ. S., & ParkS-H. (1997). Computable feature-based qualitative modeling of shape and space. In JungeR. (Ed.), CAAD Futures 1997 (pp. 821–830). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.
21.
HagerhallC. M.PurcellT., & TaylorR. (2004). Fractal dimension of landscape silhouette outlines as a predictor of landscape preference. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24, 247–255.
22.
HallP., & WoodA. (1993). On the performance of box-counting estimators of fractal dimension. Biometrika, 80, 246–252.
23.
HejdukJ. (1979). John Hejduk, 7 houses: January 22 to February 16, 1980. New York, NY: Institute for Architecture and Urban Studies.
24.
HejdukJ. (1985). Mask of Medusa: Works, 1947-1983. ShkapichK. (Ed.). New York, NY: Rizzoli.
25.
JoyeY. (2007). Fractal architecture could be good for you. Nexus Network Journal, 9, 311–320.
26.
KellerJ. M.CrownoverR. M., & ChenR. Y. (1987). Characteristics of natural scenes related to the fractal dimension. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, PAMI-9, 9, 621–627.
27.
KwinterS. (1995). Introduction: The Eisenman wave. In DobneyS. (Ed.), Eisenman architects: Selected and current works (pp. 7–15). Mulgrave, Victoria, Australia: Images Publishing Group.
28.
LiJ.DuQ., & SunC. (2009). An improved box-counting method for image fractal dimension estimation. Pattern Recognition, 42(11), 2460–2469.
29.
LinderM. (2004). Nothing less than literal: Architecture after minimalism.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
30.
LorenzW. (2003). Fractals and fractal architecture. Masters dissertation. Vienna University of Technology.
31.
LynnG. (2004). Architecture versus sculpture. In NoeverP. (Ed.), Barefoot on white-hot walls (pp. 160–167). Germany: Holzhausen Druck.
32.
MandelbrotB. B. (1982). The fractal geometry of nature. San Francisco, CA: Freeman.
33.
MitchellW. (1990). The logic of architecture.London: MIT Press.
34.
MooreC.AllenG., & LyndonD. (1974) The place of houses. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
35.
OstwaldM. J. (2009). Fractal architecture: Knowledge development within and between architecture and the sciences of complexity. Saarbrücken: VDM.
36.
OstwaldM. J. (2010). The politics of fractal geometry in Russian paper architecture. Architectural Theory Review, 15, 125–137.
37.
OstwaldM. J., & VaughanJ. (2009). Visual qualities in early modern and late modern architecture: A mathematical comparison of formal complexity in the houses of Gray and Sejima. In GuN.OstwaldM. J., & WilliamsA. (Eds.), Computing, cognition and education: Recent research in the architectural sciences (pp. 9–32). Newcastle: ANZAScA.
38.
OstwaldM. J., & VaughanJ. (2010). The mathematics of style in the architecture of Frank Lloyd Wright: A computational, fractal analysis of formal complexity in fifteen domestic designs. In GellerP. S. (Ed.), Built environment: Design management and applications (pp. 63–88). New York, NY: NOVA Scientific.
39.
OstwaldM. J., & VaughanJ. (2011). The mathematics of domestic modernism (1922-1934): An analysis of correlations between façade complexity, orientation, address and permeability. Design Principles and Practices: An International Journal, 4, 143–162.
40.
OstwaldM. J.VaughanJ., & ChalupS. (2009). A computational investigation into the fractal dimensions of the architecture of Kazuyo Sejima. Design Principles and Practices: An International Journal, 3, 231–244.
41.
OstwaldM. J.VaughanJ., & TuckerC. (2008). Characteristic visual complexity: Fractal dimensions in the architecture of Frank Lloyd Wright and Le Corbusier. In WilliamsK. (Ed.), Nexus VII: Architecture and mathematics (pp. 217–232). Turin: Kim Williams Books.
42.
SalaN. (2004). Fractal geometry in the arts: An overview across the different cultures. In Thinking in patterns: Fractals and related phenomena in nature (pp. 177–188). Singapore: World Scientific Publishing Co.
43.
SalingarosN. A. (2005). Principles of urban structure. Amsterdam: Tecne Press.
44.
SalingarosN. A. (2007). A theory of architecture. Solingen: Umbau-Verlag.
45.
SalingarosN. A. (2008). Anti-architecture and deconstruction. Solingen: Umbau-Verlag.
46.
StampsA. E.III (2000). Psychology and the aesthetics of the built environment. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
47.
StampsA. E.III (2002). Fractals, skylines, nature and beauty. Landscape and Urban Planning, 60, 163–184.
48.
StinyG. (2006). Shape: Talking about seeing and doing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
49.
VaughanJ., & OstwaldM. J. (2009). A quantitative comparison between the formal complexity of Le Corbusier's pre-Modern (1905-1912) and early modern (1922-1928) architecture. Design Principles and Practices: An International Journal, 3, 359–372.
50.
VaughanJ., & OstwaldM. J. (2010a). Using fractal analysis to compare the characteristic complexity of nature and architecture: Re-examining the evidence. Architectural Science Review, 53, 323–332.
51.
VaughanJ., & OstwaldM. J. (2010b). A quantitative comparison between Wright's Prairie Style and Triangle-Plan Usonian Houses using fractal analysis. Design Principles and Practices: An International Journal, 4, 333–344.
