8/10/2019 Eisenman HouseI 15-17
1/9
eter isenman
House I 9 7
Cardboard Architecture: House I
Peter
D Eisenman
These two a rt ic les by Peter D Eisenman, House I
and House II were f irst dra fted in November of 1969
and Apr il
of
1970, respectively. In bo th cases the y
were redrafted and necessarily condensed for
publica-
t ion in the f irst edi t ion of this book.
In
this edi tion the substance of the ideas remain the
same as in the f ir st pub li ca ti on . The onl y i nten ti on in
the changes which have been made here has been to
clari fy their content.
At present most
buildings
a re burdened by the ir very
description as
museums or count ry houses
with
a weigh t o f cul tu ra l meaning which is here meant to
be neutral ized by the opposit ion of
an
equal ly loaded
term. Cardboard, usual ly a derogatory term in arch i
tectural discussion (as Baroque and Gothic were when
f irst used), is used here del iberate ly as an
ironic
and
pre-emptory symbol for my argument.
Cardboard is used to Quest ion the nature of our per
ception of rea li ty and thus the meanings asc ri bed to
reality. Thus it is not so much a metaphor describing
the forms of the building but rathe r i ts i nten ti on . For
example, models are often made
of
cardboard, so the
term raises the Question
of
the form in re la tion to t he
process of des ign: is thi s a bui ld ing o r i s i t a model?
Cardboard is used to shift the f ocus f rom our eXisting
conception of form in an aesthetic and funct iona l con
text to a consideration
of form
as a mar ki ng or nota
t iona l system. The use of cardboard a ttempts to d is
tinguish an aspect of these forms which are designed
to act as a signal or a message and at t he same time
the representation of them as a message.
Cardboard
is
used to signi fy the resul t
of
the
particular
way of generating and transforming a series of primi-
t ive integar relat ionships into a more complex set of
specific relationships which become the actua l build-
ing. In this sense cardboard i s used to denote the par
ticular deployment
of
columns , walls , and beams as
they define space in a se ri es of thin p lanar, ver t ical
layers. It is no t so much a li ter al r ecogni ti on of the
actual surfaces as cardboardlike and thus insubstan
t ia l but rather
is
meant to s igni fy the vir tua l or implied
layering which is produced by the particular configura-
tion.
In
thi s con text House I and House a re exper imen ts
which attempt to transla te these concepts
into
a pos
sible working method and into a physical environment.
There is often
an
attempt made to rationalize
architecture in terms of its program. In a
paper given at the R.I.B.A. in 1957, Sir
John Summerson represented this posit ion
quite
explicitly
when he attempted to make a
case
for
a
theory of architecture
with such a
programmatic
basis. In essence, Summerson
said the source
of
unity in modern
architec-
t ure is in the soc ial sphere, in
other
words,
in the
architect s
program. But it would seem
that the s itua tion is more
complicated
than
Summerson allowed. For i f the program is
to
sustain such an emphasis, i t shou ld be ab le
to specify
and d is tingu ish what the facts of
a
particular
si tuation are, and except
for
certa in physical laws, facts in a programma
ti c
sense are in reality a series of value
judgements. Much
of
the oeuvre
of
modern
architectural
theory is involved in a basic
dilemma precisely because it has refused to
dist inguish between problems
of
fact and
problems of value. And more speci fical ly ,
because it has refused to recognize prob
lems of form as predicated by anything ex
cept
ideas of social and technological
change or as a
matter f or s ty li st ic
and
aesthetic speculation.
A museum as a program offers very little in
the
way
of specific funct ional
requirements
which can act as either a suggestion for or
limitation to a formal development. This
might account for
the fact
that
many
of
the
best museums are ones
which
have been
created in
buildings originally
designed
for
other purposes. Equal ly, s ince i t is
difficult
to def ine a precise
form
from
the
functional
requirements, the form
of
a museum is often
realized
as
a very ideal ized shape. S ince
very little is imposed on the form of a mu
seum by its funct ion, i ts
form
may be used to
help c lar if y
part of
the problem out lined
above.
The making of form can,
for
instance, be
considered as a problem
of
logical consis
tency; as a consequence of the logical struc
ture
inherent in any formal relat ionship. The
making of form in this sense is more than
the satisfaction
of
functional requirements
and more than the creat ion of aesthet ical ly
p leasing objects, but rather
the
exposition
of a set of formal relat ionships.
House I was an
attempt
to conceive
of
and
understand the physical envi ronment in a
logically
consistent manner, potential ly in
dependent of its function and i ts meaning.
The thesis presented in House I the Baren
holtz Pavilion, is as follows: one way of
producing
an environment which can
accept
or
give a more prec ise and r icher meaning
than at present, is to understand the nature
of the structure of form i tsel f, as opposed to
the relationship of form to function
or of
form to meaning.
House I posits one al ternati ve to existing
conceptions
of spat ial organizat ion . Here
there was an attempt, first, to find ways in
which form and space could be
structured
so
that they would produce a set of formal rela
t ionships wh ich is the resul t of the inheren t
logic
in the forms themselves, and, second,
to control precisely
the
logical relationships
of forms.
There were three steps in this process in
House
I
First, an attempt was made to make
a distinction between those aspects of form
which respond to
programmatic
and tech
nological requirements and those aspects
of
form which relate to a logical s tructure. In
order
to
make this d is tinc tion, an attempt
was made to reduce
or
unload the eXisting
meaning of the forms. Second, a formal
structure
was made f rom these marks in the
actual environment. Third, this formal
struc-
t ure o f
marks was related to
another
formal
structure
of a more abstract and funda
mental nature. The purpose of
this
proce-
dure was to provide an awareness of formal
information latent in any environment which
previously was unavailable to the individual.
One aspect of the fi rs t step was an at tempt
to reduce
or
unload the exist ing meaning of
the forms dictated by function so
that
the
forms could be seen as a series of primitive
marks. This was attempted through a manip
ulation
of
the relationship
of
the color, tex
ture, and shape of the
built
forms. White
forms are used in House I t o shi ft our visual
perception and conception of such forms;
f rom the perception of a real, tangible, white
volumetric architecture to the conception of
an
abstract, colored planar space; f rom the
polemic of
the
white
of the 1920 s to the
neutrality
of cardboard.
The whi te
color
and the flat tex tu re are c loser to an abst ract
p lane than say a natural wood
or
a cut s tone
wal l. A lso the very fact tha t the whi te planes
carry
a
specific
meaning related to a known
8/10/2019 Eisenman HouseI 15-17
2/9
s ty le t he I nt er na ti on al Style) , m ake s them
less likely to t ak e on n ew m ea ni ng . It should
e ve n b e e as ie r t o red uc e their existing mean
ing, as will be seen below, when they are
p la ce d in a d if fe ren t cont ext. To t hi s end,
color
and material will be seen in the argu
ment below to be used in House I as mark-
ing d ev ic es . Tra di ti on al ly , whe n whi te wa s
used,
window mullions
and ha nd ra ils were
painted black, and planes of primary or pastel
c ol ors were introduced
for
aesthetic effect.
In Hou se I white or black p la ne s are used
simply as opposites in a formal structure
whi le g re y or clear g la ss a re c on si de re d as
neutral.
A secon d aspe ct of the ini tia l ma rkin g p ro
cess involved the s tr uct ur al element s - the
c ol um ns a nd b ea ms. The y a pp ea r initially to
b e rat he r c on ve nt io na l p arts
of
a s truc tu ra l
system. However, u pon c lo se r i ns pec ti on
this is fo und n ot to be the case. It is a ct ua lly
n ot p os si bl e t o d et ermi ne how the structure
functions
f rom looking
at the columns and
beams. All
of
t he a pp aren t
structural
appa
ratus - the exposed beams, the fr ee st an d
ing columns - are in fact non-structural.
When this is understood, a first step has
been taken t o unload, al be it in a very
primi-
tive way,
their
structural m ea ni ng . W hi le t he
apparent physical
fact
is the same w he th er
t he y a re l oa d-be arin g
or
not,
their
meaning
has changed becau se t he y are in fact not
l oa d-be arin g, a nd t hu s t he i nt en ti on i mp li ed
in
their
use in a
particular
location m us t n ow
be consider ed in a d if fe re nt way. On ce one
has un der st ood t ha t t hey ar e n ot st ru ct ur al
one must ask what are they? Why are they
whe re t he y a re ? Tak e t he m a wa y, or change
their shape, and w ha t have you got?
It can also be asked, why go to all this trou-
b le? If th e co lu mn s ar e sup pose d t o be non
s tr uc tu ra l, w hy n ot
j us t cu t
them o ff
at
the
to p so th at we kn ow im med ia tel y by t he f act
that they do n ot co nti nue to the ce ilin g t ha t
they ar e n ot co lu mns but m er ely a not ation
for some other purpose? But cutting the
columns
short of
t he c ei li ng w ou ld in
fact
do
t he o pp os it e
of
what is intended. It would
give the column a
further
meaning by ob
viously calling attention to itself as a non
supporting c ol um n, w he re as i t is s up po se d
t o be m er el y on e m ar k or a
primitive
element
in a f orma l s ch em e.
The s ec on d i nt en ti on of t hi s work called for
taking these marks and deploying them in
such a way so as to make a complete
formal
structure
and t o sh ow t ha t th is st ru c-
ture was a primary c on si de ra ti on in t he d e
sign of t he w ho le b ui ld in g. T o f oc us on t hi s,
r eq ui re d a fur ther shi ft in the primary con
ce pt io n of an e nv ir on me nt ; t hi s t im e f ro m
a c on ce rn m er el y f or m ar ki ng e le me nt s a nd
their
meaning to a concern
for
t he ir r ela
tionship in a f or ma l s tr uc tu re . T o force this
shift in Hou se I t he f or ma l s tr uc tu re was in
a sense over-stressed
or
over-articulated so
that it would become a dominant aspect of
t he b ui ld in g. O ne m ea ns t o o ve r-st re ss s uc h
a s truc tu re was t o s ug ge st t wo s im ul ta ne ou s
structures which overlay and interact. These
w er e based on a s im pl e c om bi na ti on of two
p air s of fo rmal ref ere nces: planes and vol
umes, on the one hand; fr on ta l and oblique
relationships, on the other.
The t wo f orma l structures ar e m ar ke d by t he
c ol um ns a nd b eam s. The se a re n ot d ep lo ye d
in a r eg ul ar p at te rn su ch as a columnar grid,
w hi ch in such a c on di ti on could be seen as a
neutral referent, nor are they to be seen as
the residue of such a grid, but rather they
are intentionally placed in an apparently
random order. This intention can be ex
p la in ed in t he f ol lo wi ng way.
In
the fir st in
s ta nc e, t he s pa ce is c on ce iv ed of as a la ye r
ing or pi a id in g cross layering) of planes.
The
rectilinear
columns and beams are
p la ce d s o
that
th ey w ill read as a residue
of
these planes. Conversely, the round
columns
are used to mark the intersections of two
p la ne s, whi ch
might
possibly be read
as
j oi ne d a t t hi s i nt erse ct io n, t hu s f ormi ng v ol
umes if t he c ol um ns were s qu are. The rou nd
c ol um n p re ve nt s t he p os si bl e i nt erpret at io n
of co lu mns as residual corners of vol
umes. In t he s ec on d in st an ce , th e t hr ee c ol
umns a fourth is marked in the floor), be
cause of
their
particular disposition, also
m ar k a di ago na l system. T hey can be i nt er
p re te d in the f ol lo wi ng way. If both pa irs
of
rou nd c ol um ns a nd b ea ms were se en t o sp an
the e ntir e space Fig.
5
t hey w ou ld read,
despite the roundness of the columns, as
pa rt of th e fr on ta l layer ing. By t akin g away
two
columns, a round one in the space and
one a tt ache d to the wall Fig.
6
as we ll
as
t he p or ti on s of the beams connecting to
these
columns,.
an implied diagonal is
created.
Thus the intention was to use the columns
a nd b eam s t o
mark two
systems
without
giv
ing preference to either. Together the count-
e rpo in t of these two formal systems, the
frontal
planar
l ay erin g a nd t he d ia go na l v ol
umetric sh if t, o ve rl ai d and i nt er ac ti ng w it h
o ne a no th er ma ke it more difficult to read a
s in gl e c oh eren t f orma l s ys te m
directly
from
the p hy si ca l fa ct. R at he r t he y r ei nf or ce t he
intention that these marks in
order
to be
u nd er st oo d f ir st r eq ui re d is en ga ge me nt o f
the
two
systems from one another, an ac
t iv it y w hi ch ta ke s p la ce in t he m in d.
Such a marking of formal relationships, in
t he a ct ua l e nv iron me nt , has u su al ly b ee n t he
e xt en t of t he architect s c on ce rn wit h f orma l
systems. Bu t the pr esen t
work
takes one
further
step.
If
we analyze the nature of
meaning in any
specific
c on te xt we r ea liz e
it has two aspects. The first is meaning
w hi ch is iconographic and symbolic and d e
rives fr om t he r ela ti on of the form to some
ref eren ce whi ch is external to it. For ex
ample, the
particular
juxtaposition of sol ids,
c ol um ns , win do ws , a nd rai li ng s in Le Cor
b us ie r s V il la Sa voye is i nt en de d as a
direct
recall of the super-structure of t he m od ern
o ce an lin er s, and w it h i t all t he i mp li ca ti on s
of the sea: discovery, newness, and ulti
mately man s conquest of nature. But un
derlying that level of meaning there is
an ot he r aspect, itself a pot ent ial so urc e of
info rm ation , wh ich co nd it io ns any ico no
graphic inter pretation; it is derived from,
and is in a sense in her ent in the st ru ct ur e
of
th e f or m. F or ex am ple, t he same j ux ta po si
t io n o f s ol id s, voids, and c ol um ns at Poissy
gives
us
cues to entry, sequen ce of move
ment, t he r el at io ns hi p
of
open to closed
sp ace, o f t he c en te r to th e p er im et er , and s o
for th. T his in fo rm at io n can be said t o be th e
product of t he int ern al structure of f or m it -
se lf. W hi le f or ma l r el at io ns hi ps can e xi st in
an e nv iron me nt at a rea l, a ct ua l l ev el , whe re
an
i nd iv id ua l is a wa re of them t hr ou gh his
senses - pe rce pt io n, hear ing,
touching-
t he y can a lso e xi st at a no th er level in w hi ch
though not seen, they can be known. This
s ec on d l ev el is i nh eren t
in
any environment
and is u sed b y an i nd iv id ua l w he th er o r n ot
he is aware
of
it. This se cond level
condi-
tions the way we perceive the first level
by providing a structure for t he v isu al cu es
which exist in the first level. And since it
has t he capacity to be known, we must be
concerned with how t hi s h ap pe ns . I f we m ark
both these levels in the environment they
can be explicitly perceived and understood.
T hi s is t he t hi rd a sp ec t
of
the
work
- a
shift
in focus from an actual
structure
to an im
plied str ucture and to the relationship be
t we en t he t wo .
This second level may be
thought of as a
range of a bs trac t a nd m ore u ni ve rs al f orma l
reg Ul arit ie s whi ch e xi st i n a ny
conception
of
8/10/2019 Eisenman HouseI 15-17
3/9
physi cal space. Thes e f or mal r eg ul ar it ie s
are uni vers al in the sense th at s uc h f or mal
concepts
as
s ol id and voi d, c en tr oi da l and
l inear, p la na r and
volumetric
are
primitive
n ot io ns w hich c an no t be r ed uc ed and w hich
exist in a state of oppo si ti on in any spati al
concepti on. Thi s s econd level i ncl ud es in
addi tion to a set of
irreducible
formal regu
larit ies, the transformations
of
thes e r eg
u la ri ties n ec es sa ry t o
produce
a
specific
envi ronment. T ra ns fo rm at io ns may be d e
scribed by such formal actions as shear,
compression, and rotation, to produce a new
level of formal i nfor mati on in any
specific
p hy sica l e nv ir on me nt . Aga in t he mar king is
used to signal the interaction between these
two levels. The phys ical envi ronment can
then be seen not only in its
functional
and
iconographic dimensions
but
also in its
formal one - as being generated from a
se ries o f a bs tr ac t f or ma l r eg ular it ie s w hich
may be described as a deep structure. These
transformati ons and r egul ar iti es have no
substantial existence
but
are merely a de
scription
of
this second level of formal re
lationships, in
other
words, a possible model
for
an architectural
deep structure.
One means
of
mak in g t he d ee p
structure
in
a
particular
environment
explicit is
to
force
an
individual to experience the environment
as a notational system which has a recogniz
able relationship to a d ee p s tr uc tu re . T his is
attempted in House I in the
following
man
ner. F ir st , t he s er ie s
of
formal relationships
which are marked in the actual space the
parallel layers and diagonal volumes) create
a contrast between actual space and implied
space. This contrast makes one
initially
aware of the presence of another level
of
formal s tr uc tu re . S ec ond, t he
two
sets
of
f or mal n ot at io ns w hich a re discernible one
read as incomplete,
the other
asymmetrical)
b ec au se o ne c an c on ce iv e o f a s ymme tr ic al
and c omplet e
structure
of
formal regulari
ties, are s uper -i mpos ed. These notati ons
whi ch ar e v ar ia ti on s of
the fo rmula B B
a pp ea r in t he a ct ua l e nv ir on me nt in t he f ol
low in g way. T he f ir st o f t he se c or re sp on ds to
the
formula BI I
I
Fig.
3
and the second
to the
formula
A2B1AIB2A2 Fig. 4); the m id
dle terms
BI
I
b eing c ommo n t o b ot h. When
t he y a re o ve rlaid on o ne a no th er , t he u nd er
lying
structure
is seen as compressed, but
when t he y ar e
slipped
apart in the mind,
it
reveals itself to be a simple symmetrical
structure.
The bas is for
creating
this relationship
of
actual
structure
to deep
structure
is quite
p rimitive . It d ep en ds on an initial s hift a lo ng
a d ia go na l t o c re at e
two
implied square vol
umes Figs. 1 and 2 One square may be
seen
as
s hift ed o ut o f t he
other or
vice versa
so that the notations both
for
the plaid
frontal layering and
fo r
the diagonal volumes
c an be seen as d er iv in g f ro m one, mor e b as ic
s ys te m. T he d ia go na l is r ead as a r es olut io n
o f t he
two directions
in
t he p la id , o r t he p la id
is read as the result of the diagonal shift.
Thus the deep structure is revealed only
t hr ou gh an e mb ed de d r elat io ns hip b et we en
two
f or ma l s tr uc tu re s in t he a ct ua l e nv ir on
men t. Alt ho ug h o ne may p er ce iv e t he se t wo
s tr uc tu re s in t he a ct ua l e nv ir on me nt , o ne is
unable to per cei ve the deep s tr uc tu re be
cause
of
i ts e xist en ce in t he envi r on me nt
as
an irregular gestalt. These actual structures
t hu s ha ve a c ommo n r elat io ns hip in a deep
structure
whi ch is not
perceptible
but
which
can be understood after both
structures
have been perceived.
Any physical environment has this second
or
d ee p s tr uc tu ra l lev el, w hich n ot o nly has t he
c ap ac it y t o c on ve y inf or ma tion
but
does so
continually
a t a les s- th an -c on sc io us lev el. I t
e xist s w it ho ut b eing c on sc io us ly d es ig ne d,
and t he re
is
a c on ce pt ua l
capacity
within
eac h i nd iv id ual t o r ec ei ve th is i nf or ma ti on .
Mar king t he de ep
structure
in t he a ct ua l en
vi ronm ent may br ing i t to a more c onsc ious
level. As was sai d above, t he re is no reason
or
meaning intended in the use of this par
ticular
formal strategy. The two overlaid
systems are nei ther good nor bad in them
s elves . T he y ar e int en de d mer ely to exem
p li fy t he logic inherent in any formal
struc-
t ur e, an d t he p ot en tial
capacity of
that logic
to provide an area of new meaning.
In s umma ry , t hr ee s hift s w er e a tt empt ed in
House I Eac h c on ce rn ed an a tt empt t o s ep
ar at e the ac tu al ph ys ic al e nv ir on me nt f ro m
its t radi ti onal rel ati onshi p to f unc ti on and
meaning, to neutralize the influence of these
on t he v ie we r. T he f ir st c on ce rn ed t he
mark-
ing of the elements
of the
actual environ
m ent; t he s ec on d c on ce rn ed t he m ar ki ng of
t he f or ma l
structure
in the ac tual envi ron
ment; the third concerned the marking
of
the
relationship of this formal structure to a deep
structure.
Such a c onc epti on
of
design attempts to
change the
primary
intention of
architectural
f or m f ro m t he
perception of
s pa ce t o u nd er
standi ng the r elati ons hi p of marks in
that
space to what is called here a deep
struc-
ture. The capacity to understand, as op-
po sed to e xp er ie nc e t hi s i nt en ti on doe s no t
d ep en d e nt ir ely on t he o bs er ve r s particular
c ultu ra l b ac kg ro un d, h is s ub je ct iv e p er ce p
tions,
or
his
particular
mood at any given
time, all of which condition his usual ex
perience
of an
actual environment, but rather
it depends on his i nnate c apac it y to under
stand formal structures.
Such a position introduces, as a primary
concern
of
a rc hite ct ur e, t he use o f p hy sica l
form as a marki ng to produce, as it were, a
ne w men ta l ima ge
of an
environment differ
ent from that w hi ch we are ac tua ll y seeing.
T he de ep s tr uc tu re , w he n it is c ombine d w it h
the
perceptible
p hy si ca l r eal ity , has th e p o
tential,
if
it
is structured in
a precise fashion,
t o mak e a va ilab le a ne w level o f inf or ma tion .
The more this
structure
a pp ro xi ma te s a
pur el y form al envi ronment, the less
tradi-
t ional the meaning it possesses, and thus the
cl oser it is to
an
environment that
might
be
a vehicle for such new information.
To do this, form must be fi rst consi der ed to
be p oten ti al ly separabl e fr om its exi sti ng
p er ce pt io n and c on ce pt io n, and sec ond, it
must be considered
as
capable of changing
or
r aising t he lev el of c on sc io us ne ss by p ro
p os in g a critique of the ex is ti ng s it uat io n in
architectu
reo
17
8/10/2019 Eisenman HouseI 15-17
4/9
~ : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : ~ :
__:::::::. . . . . . ...
::::: :. .:
. _
::::._
..
~ m _._...=
.......:
...
I
mmtBffi
I
-
I
,
I I
I'
I I I I
:
I
,
,
,
,
:
I I I I: I I I I I
, I
I'
, I I
', ,
,
I I
,
I I
I
I I 1
,
I I I
:
, :
,
I
I , '
I I I
:
I
:
I
I
H -
: I
,
:
I I
,
I I
:
I ,
Lt -
' I
:
I: ,
o
I :
I
I
I
,
IU )-J
II ~ ~
: :: :::
.:::: ...... :::.:::::: .... :: : I . '.:.
I: iI
:llll
ill 11111111
.
::I I: III
I ;
1III11111
I
I1
1
LLLiI..LLLl1..l.LLU L L L l L J L L L l L L L l ~ 1
ht
.L..L..Lr...L..L..
n t
1
l r ti,
~ : . _ . l ~
011 1Tll1llr
1 ' 1 , ' 1 ' ;::::.
III I :
I
1- - -- -I.L...l..1.L...l..1.L...l..\
. L . L L . L . L . L . L . L ~ + - - t - T t - ' r ' i r + + - - ' - : , . n -
+ ;-r=r; -t
8/10/2019 Eisenman HouseI 15-17
5/9
o
I I III 1III I1II I
[ 0
I
I
I
o
o
I
I I I :
. . . . . , . . . , . . T T ' l . . . , . . . . . . . . , . . - r - T ' i i - , . . , . . ~ , . . , . . I '
i
lnmTlTnTmf=P=t+m=H
=I1t
:
I I
I i
H
~ L l f t ; t-+-t-++-+-t-c:H-i1l_ _
H
11-:- 1 -- Hl
C
o
1
I
o
J_
I I L r-
i
I : rg
I
I I
4 T
I I I
1
I I I
i
I
I
I - i - ; - I
f r
I I
1
-+
i
:
I
I
I
I I I I
I
I
rtt=I+++
i
:l=++ll1lr ::::::::::1-.L..L.Y-
1
_ - L L
I
4I
u
} -1 ~ I u _ _ ; _ ~ _ ~ _ H f c
I
f t i ~ H H f t 1 1 ~ H D
f-t--L
8/10/2019 Eisenman HouseI 15-17
6/9
L
===_11
I
_
Roof Plan
Section
8/10/2019 Eisenman HouseI 15-17
7/9
8/10/2019 Eisenman HouseI 15-17
8/9
8/10/2019 Eisenman HouseI 15-17
9/9
2
. .
.
..
...
: \
i \ \\\
:
\
; ; : ; \ ~ : : : \ \\
/
.
,,,
/
.. ....
' . :
;
\ 1
.,
.
, , .. ,
\,
\
\
\\\
j.//:\/ /
\
, ..
/
, ..
..,
\:::::;:-1 /
i\L
\ : ..
\L
..
....
.
...
22