Even more fundamentally, I wondered what a building would look like having been designed without any consideration to its surroundings or specific function. Eisenman filled my head with an image of the block towers I built in Kindergarten, as depicted by a TI-83. Not exactly inhabitable, to say the least. If this is the case, then it seems art should be accessible, particularly architecture, which serves as a means of literally shaping every day life. Buildings need to be legible to an extent, but perhaps people can make this happen simply by inhabiting spaces.
Legibility depends on some sort of shared knowledge.
Despite his thorough deconstruction of it, Eisenman never validates Gwathmey Siegel's work in his analysis. I didn't identify with them, but I could wrap my mind around them as complete, pulsating, and beautiful structures. They were not appealing to me because of their overtly delicate vectorial balance, their dynamic spheres and planes and barrel vaulting. They were buildings, and I accepted them and moreover I liked them, more than I had through Eisenman's convoluted theorizing. Inc. New York, 1993.