The Beginning of the of the Beginning

Eisenmann writes:

"An origin of value implies a state or a condition of origin before value has been given to it. A beginning is such a condition prior to a valued origin. In order to reconstruct the timeless, the state as is, of face value, one must begin: begin by elimination the time-bound concepts of the classical, which are primarily origin and end. The end of the beginning is also the end of the beginning of value.

...

This formula, part of the fictions of reason and history, reduces architecture to an "added to" or "inessential" object by making it simply an effect of certain causes understood as origins. This problem is inherent in all of classical architecture, including its modernist aspect. The idea of architecture as something "added to" rather than something with its own being-as adjectival rather than nominal or ontological-leads to the perception of architecture as a practical device. As long as architecture is primarily a device designated for use and for shelter-that is, as long as it has origins in programmatic functions-it will always constitute and effect" (Eisenmann 1996, 220).

I apologize for the lengthy quotation, but I can't help thinking there is something terribly wrong about this passage. This is what I think is the core argument of Eisenmann's essay "The End of the Classical," the strongest argument I've read against historical, rational, and representational value in architecture. I don't think he truly disproves the value of history and I certainly am not convinced about his evidence for a purely "arbitrary" design approach.

But this is enough for now. Defining and expanding on what is wrong with this statement is the starting point for my architectural thesis. This "End" will become a new beginning.