Theorizing Deconstructivism From the perspective of the three deconstructivists
CALEB ONG YAN WENG
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the degree of Master of Architecture December 2017
SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE, BUILDING & DESIGN TAYLOR'S UNIVERSITY
UNIT COORDINATOR SUPERVISOR
: DR. VERONICA NG FOONG PENG : DR. SUCHARITA SRIRANGAM
Abstract Deconstructivism as an architectural movement inspired by the deconstruction philosophy with seemingly distorted, fragmented representation started to be commissioned and seen built among the significant projects in 20nd and 21st Century. Deconstructivist claimed that they had liberated architecture from the hegemony of certainty and introduced a set of instrument in creating new context. The nature of obsession and needs of an inexhaustible of new images and icons by the society in achieving otherness, newness in the modern mediadriven hyper reality has further elevate the success of deconstructivism building and created two different architecture of deconstructivists: one of which conceptualizes context while the other create concept-form and icons. In recent year of interviews and publications, the deconstructivism theorists has claimed their building to be contextual even though their building doesn’t conform to traditional principles in contextualism. The definition of deconstruction, deconstructivism, and the various contextualism in the recent years is investigated and collected. Claims, critics and views revolving contextualism among the three case study: the three deconstructivists namely Peter Eisenman, Bernard Tschumi and Rem Koolhaas are collected. 10 main reoccurring qualitative terms have been collected in the data collection process. This dissertation seeks to continue interrogate and investigate the quality and definition of contextualism in the built projects of deconstructivism theorists and the possibility of a changing definition and quality of architecture being “contextual�. This dissertation is a work in progress and to be completed by the end of next semester. Keywords: Deconstructivist, Deconstruction, Iconism, Contextualism, Claims, Critics
2
Declaration
This is to certify that: ● The dissertation comprises only my original work towards the Master of Architecture except where indicated in the preface, ● Due acknowledgement has been made in the text to all other material used and help received, ● The research described in this dissertation has not already been submitted for any other degree ● This dissertation is compiled around 10,000 words and 15,000 words in length, exclusive of figures, tables, bibliography and appendices,
Signature
: ..........................................
Signed by
: Caleb Ong Yan Weng
Date
: 6th December 2017
3
Preface This is an original dissertation by the author, Caleb Ong Yan Weng, submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements of the degree in Master of Architecture. It comprises of works and researches done from August 2017 to June 2018. As certain level of subjectivity lies within the interpretation of meaning revolving around the nature of deconstruction: to question the literary meaning of established content, this dissertation focuses on extraction of various approaches, claims, critics revolving around the key focused theme of context and deconstruction from filtered prestigious resources. The research is made solely by the author with reference to the sources. The information and research here will be beneficial for academician, aspiring designers and architects to garner a deeper understanding of deconstruction, deconstructivism in architecture and context in deconstructivist to establish a background of meaning in encouraging further critical discourse revolving in the highly creative postmodern-era of architecture.
4
Acknowledgement I hereby wish to express my utmost gratitude to the individuals who have extended their assistance throughout the construct of this dissertation: 
Dr. Sucharita Srirangam, my supervisor for which her expertise, understanding, pragmatic and generous guidance along the process made it possible for me to work on a topic of great conflict and interest and with me. Her knowledge, patience and frequent encouragement had been a great asset to me which I had learnt so much over the 1 year duration of completing this dissertation.

Dr. Veronica Ng Foong Peng, Ar. Ian Ng Aik Soon, Ar. Lee Cherng Yih, Ar. Zuhari Zubir as my lecturers for providing constructive advices and supports throughout the journey in the making of this dissertation.
5
Table of Contents Abstract
2
Declaration
3
Preface
4
Acknowledgement
5
Table of Contents
6
1.0
7
Introduction
1.1
Background Study
7
1.2
Problem Statement
8
1.3
Research Question
9
1.4
Research Aim & Objectives
9
1.5
Research Methods and Methodology
10
1.6
Limitations and Delimitations
12
1.7
Significance & Justification
12
2.0
Literature Review
13
2.1
Deconstructivism Architecture
13
2.2
Deconstructivism to Iconism
17
2.3
Contextualism
21
2.4
Claims and Critics of Deconstructivist architecture
23
3.0
Case Study
3.1 Peter Eisenman 3.1.1
City of Culture of Galicia
3.2 Bernard Tschumi 3.2.2
Acropolis Museum, Athens
3.3 Rem Koolhaas 3.3.1
CCTV Headquarter
3.4 Data Collection of Context
27 27 29 30 32 40 41 43
4.0
Discussion
44
5.0
Conclusion
45
6.0
References
46
7.0
Notes
50
6
1.0 Introduction 1.1 Background Study Deconstructivism is an architectural movement emerges after postmodernism. It originated from philosopher Jacques Derrida under the influence of Nihilism by Friedrich Nietzsche during the 1970s and was borrowed into the architectural thinking of deconstructivist architect to question and create new architecture possibility that is deemed to be a radical approach. Museum of Modern Art’s 1988 exhibition Deconstructivist Architecture curated by Philip Johnson and Mark Wigley highlighted project works by seven architects declare a new chapter for the postmodernism in architecture and has gained global attention. The architectural phenomenon of deconstructed buildings inspired by the deconstruction philosophy with seemingly distorted, fragmented representation started to be commissioned and seen built among the significant projects in 20nd and 21st Century. The buildings are provocative and have gained
global
prestigious
appraisal,
recognition
and
certainly,
influence.
Deconstructivist claimed that they had liberated architecture from the hegemony of certainty and introduced a set of instrument in creating new context and they are taking pride in it.i It has been seen to be a movement in which it transgresses formal orders and traditional architecture principles, disrupt harmony and rejects following the form and pattern languages with its context. The conformist argues that deconstruction is inhuman and disruptive thus should be eliminated to fit within the utopian approach of relying solely on a set of universal principles and laws to govern the nature of orders in architectural design. The nature of obsession and needs of an inexhaustible of new images and icons by the society in achieving otherness, newness in the modern mediadriven hyper reality has further elevate the success of deconstructivism building. In recent year of interviews and publications, the deconstructivism theorists has claimed their building to be contextual even though their building doesn’t conform to traditional principles in contextualism. The dissertation seeks to interrogate and investigate the quality of contextualism in the built project of deconstructivism theorists and the possibility of a changing definition and quality of architecture being “contextual”.
7
1.2 Problem Statement Global architecture has seen a rise of iconic structures designed as commoditized objects of global capitalism that pretending to disregard the physical, social and cultural aspects of their urban context and feigning independence. The contextual aspects of architecture have been argued of its definition and occasionally being ignored or abused in contemporary architectural practice. Architecture theorists borrows the literary philosophy of deconstruction into architecture, which started off in questioning the relationship between the text and meaning are used in questioning the relationship between the context and meaning in legitimatizing a new reinvention of context. Obsession of newness, otherness and icons in the modern media-driven hyper reality that falls in the favor of capitalism formulate architectural trend and cults (Nikos A. Salingaros, 2004) that reduces theoretical and discursive reflections on context today
among teachers, theoreticians. It poses a critical future of architecture practices and education with the inherent property of an architectural practice – context moves away from the central of architectural theory and discourse. The lack of strict definitions or design principles for contextual design practices and emphasis in its architectural discourse allows manipulation of definition in the hand of deconstructivist and architect beyond physical features of a site and the notion of genius loci. By way of contrast, in the 1950s, various architects, theorists, and teachers cultivated several perspectives on context as a way of addressing some of the ill effects of modern architectural orthodoxy. Context fell into disrepute in the critical architectural discourse of the 1980s. The paper investigate the claimed radical and new approach of contextualism in deconstructivism to establish a background of meaning for contextualizing in architecture.
8
1.3 Research Question Based on the background study, there is a changes in the definition of “context” in the context of architectural design thinking. The researcher identifies the need and lacking of an investigation and interrogation of context in the project’s architectural context among the seven deconstructivist built works. This study thus posits and responses to the research question as follows: Main Research Question: In what way deconstructivism formulate contextual architecture? Sub-Research Questions: -
What is deconstructivism architecture and contextualism?
-
What is the various approach and critics of contextualism in deconstructivist architecture?
-
What are the attribute and contextual quality of deconstructivism architecture?
1.4 Research Aim & Objectives The main intention of this paper is to investigate the theory behind deconstructivist architecture and contextualism to analyze the attribute and quality of contextualism in deconstructivism architecture.
In order to achieve the research question and its aim, this study embarks the following objectives: 1. To study and understand the context, origin and history of deconstructivism architecture. 2. To identify the principles of deconstructivism and contextualism and the various approach and critics of contextualism towards deconstructivism. 3. To analyze and discuss the attributes pertained in the contextualism of deconstructivist architecture.
9
1.5 Research Methods and Methodology This paper adopts a qualitative research methodology. In this paper, knowledge is constructed based on analyzing 6 architectural projects of the 3 case study using framework derived through literature review. Researcher has to conduct the project within eleven months of time by looking into collecting data such as drawings, transcripts, approaches, critics, publications about the selected topic, initiate tabulation, groupings of data and producing diagrams to analyze the attribute of contextualism in deconstructivist architecture. This particular methodology is selected as certain level of subjectivity lies within the theme and topic of deconstructivism and contextualism. It is important to establish a foundation and background understanding behind the meaning of deconstruction due to the nature of deconstruction: which started off as a literary theory to question the literary meaning of established content and formulate new meaning and readings. The case study towards the subject matter would be the among the seven theoretical architect’s because of their strong association to deconstructivism due to the inclusion in the Museum of Modern Art’s 1988 exhibition Deconstructivist Architecture. Through this approach, case study and their built projects are carefully selected based on the extracted subjective claims and views of deconstructivism and contextualism. An analytical framework of contextualism are derived based on literature review to analyze the contextualism in the selected deconstructivist building. The research will be conducted according to the phases shown below: Phase 1: Literature Review in deriving analytical framework and case study selection The definition of contextualism and deconstructivism is to be extracted based on filtered prestigious resources to inform selection of case study and establish a background understanding and analytical framework to analyze the case study.
10
Phase 2: Data Collection Claims, Approaches, View in relation to contextualism in deconstructivism is extracted and collected. Relevant drawings, sketches, diagrams and photographs are collected to be further analyzed. Based on literature review and the limitation of the subject, the case study will be the 3 main deconstructivist and theorist: Peter Eisenman, Bernard Tschumi, and Rem Koolhaas. Phase 3: Data Analysis Mappings, Diagrams, Theme and Elements of attribute collected and curated based on the literature review are tabulated, grouped up according to the analytical framework to be further analyzed. The researcher will draw conclusion based on further reference to resources and produce analytical diagrams to achieve better understanding from the findings, followed by critical discussions which will leads to a conclusion of contextualism in deconstructivism.
11
1.6 Limitations and Delimitations There are no strict authoritative measures that are able to enforce and restrict the definition and meaning derived from any dialectic and communicative expressions in built object and texts to stay constant and be protected. Thus the discussion of definition, views and subjective element is only subject to this period of time and are subject to change in the future. Due to the nature of the philosophy of deconstruction: which started off as a literary theory to question the literary meaning of established content and formulate new meaning and readings, there is a certain level of subjectivity behind the definition and meaning of deconstruction. Subjective elements such as views, critics and architectural elements are to only be extracted from reliable resources as a basis to form objective understanding towards the subject matter at this point of time. As deconstruction is a term created relatively new in the history of human time and are only associated with architecture for 30 years since Museum of Modern Art’s 1988 exhibition of Deconstructivist Architecture by Philip Johnson and Mark Wigley, the case study would be among the seven deconstructivist. Due to the limited amount of critics, views regarding the matters, case study with high amount of resources will be selected. Case study which have theoretical papers regarding the subject matter will also be prioritized due to the limit of theoretical papers published by the case study. Only 3 Case study embraces the philosophy of deconstruction and acknowledged himself as deconstructivist among the seven deconstructivist.
1.7 Significance & Justification This study investigate the gap of translation and reading between architecture and its meaning. Deconstruction explores, utilizes, abuses and manipulates the translation in between the meaning of context and text in relation to various architectural objectives. Understanding of context is an inherent property of architectural practice back in 1950s but has slowly losing its emphasis in the 1980s.
12
2.0 Literature Review 2.1 Deconstructivism Architecture Deconstructivism in architecture is often associated with highly theoretical architects because of their inclusion in the Museum of Modern Art’s 1988 exhibition Deconstructivist Architecture. The association of deconstructivism and linguistic theory, specifically the work of Jacques Derrida and post-structuralism, has been imposed on the architects included over time as a way to legitimize linguistic theory as an architectural methodology separate from traditionally postmodern architectural forms. The intent of the exhibition was to showcase work that was visually similar to Russian Constructivism, but the legacy of the exhibition has been the integration of linguistic theory into architectural dialogue because of the atmosphere of social and intellectual crisis from which the exhibition emerged. Although the potential to incorporate meaningful ties with both Russian Constructivism and linguistic deconstruction were latent in the exhibition, it was ultimately a means for Philip Johnson and Mark Wigley to justify the stylistic pluralism present in his own architectural theory. The exhibition is over simplified to mark the beginning of deconstructivism. The seven deconstructivist presented in the exhibition are Frank O. Gehry, Daniel Libeskind, Rem Koolhaas, Peter Eisenman, Zaha M. Hadid, Coop Himmelblau and Bernard Tschumi. Each of the deconstructivist have individual characteristic, working independently, at separate continent, was to question and go against the mainstream of design thought and escape the historicism during the 1970s and early 1980s. There are clear differences between generation modes of thought in both architectural front and philosophical front. The reason behind the intersection of philosophy theory and architectural theory remains unknown. However, it was during that particular time of intersection and collision between the field of philosophy and the field of architecture creates deconstructivist architecture, which is further signified by the 1988’s exhibition. The condition of the intersection serves as a foundation for architecture has been affirmed through the deconstruction of positivism; science is no longer an objective generator and arbitrator of truth. Science is, like architecture, a practice embedded in social and political realities that include/exclude knowledge. (Reaction, interpretation, 13
transformation, and refutation) The fact that architecture are able to intersect with theories out of architectural enterprise, infuse design culture in particular with exciting new formal operations that can, legitimately, be drawn from anywhere has been liberating for architecture. Borrowed knowledge and methods now have standing and there is legitimization of such a practice. (Lynda H. S. & Robert G. S., 2000) Large body of theoretical papers have been published by the deconstructivist to legitimize the incoherence, irrational and unreasonable of deconstruction to logical and specifically appropriate as a design approach for the configuration of architecture. In Architecture
and
Disjunction-Bernard
Tschumi’s
theoretical
book
on
Deconstructivists, the main attribute (strength and weakness at the same time) of deconstruction is as years went by, the multiple interpretations that multiple architects gave to deconstruction became more multiple than deconstruction's theory of multiple readings could ever have hoped. For one architect it had to do with dissimulation; for another, with fragmentation; for yet another, with displacement. Again, to quote Nietzsche: "There are no facts, only an infinity of interpretations. Perhaps due to the fact that many architects shared the same anti-historicism notion, deconstructivism was born and immediately called a ‘style’-precisely what the deconstructivists had been trying to avoid being associated with. Any interest in poststructuralist thought and deconstruction stemmed from the fact that they challenged the idea of a single unified set of images, the idea of certainty, and of course, the idea of an identifiable language. (Tschumi B. 1996) The contextual approach and claim of deconstructivist often described as the radical approach. The radical move deconstruction offers in this direction is to think ‘both/ and’ rather than ‘either/or’. In Feminism and Deconstruction, Diane Elam observes that Derrida’s understanding of undecideability is not indeterminate but rather a ‘determinate oscillation between possibilities’. Elam goes on to claim that such a position offers a political potential by refusing to choose between one and another (Elam, 1994, p. 83). “Deconstruction is a method of analyzing texts based on the idea that language is inherently unstable and shifting and that the reader rather than the author is central in determining meaning. It was introduced by the French philosopher Jacques Derrida in 14
the late 1960s.” (Encarta World English Dictionary, 1999). The term deconstruction as defined in A Dictionary of Literary Terms and Literary Theory, third ed (London: Blackwell, 1991) describes as follow: “Deconstruction is not synonymous with “destruction”, however. It is in fact much closer to the original meaning of the word ‘analysis’ itself, which etymologically means “to undo” – a virtual synonym for “to de-construct.” If anything is destroyed in a deconstructive reading, it is not the text, but the claim to unequivocal domination of one mode of signifying over another. A deconstructive reading is a reading which analyses the specificity of a text’s critical difference from itself.” Architecture theorists sees the similarity in the motives of liberating itself from the hegemony of certainty in architecture, sees a strategic opportunity in a collaboration between both fields. The relationship between text and meaning are further explored in deconstruction just as the relationship between context and meaning. Post-modernism and deconstruction of the previous decade, tended to avoid the literal and instead to assert the metaphorical parameters of architectural form to create an overlapping of meaning. (Peckham A. 2016) With such a largely undefined (intended) and theory established upon complexity, it is able to enable historians, practitioners, students and non-academics alike to address other disciplines and current conditions and preoccupations, thus diversify the significance of architecture. It deals with matters of race, sexuality, class, psychoanalysis, social space, of how meanings are created and transferred, with experience, political action, gender and so on. (Border I. & Rendell J., 2000) One of the key strength of deconstruction are described here: It would be vain to attempt to refute postmodern anti-rationalism in a sentence or two; but besides observing its liability to pragmatic self-refutation (as there are no ‘truths’). It is worth adding that its proclamation of the ‘end of reason’ generally attributes to earlier realist traditions a core of epistemological and metaphysical commitments which they have not all shared.ii (Haldane J., 1999)
15
Deconstructivist in architecture wasn’t formed based on nihilism, but instead it is created to specifically show that there are intrinsic meaning in the negatives and incoherence of architecture. It also argues that deconstructivism exists for a very particular specific reason and is proven to be an effective means to achieve certain objective. Among the seven deconstructivist, architect Peter Eisenman, Bernard Tschumi and Rem Koolhaas are selected as case study due to:
They acknowledge themselves as Deconstructivist, embraces and espoused the philosophy of deconstruction and their identities as Deconstructivist.
They possess large body of theoretical publication and papers in Deconstructivism.
There are claims, views, critics and discussions involving them in the subject matter of deconstruction and context.
Frank Gehry, Zaha Hadid, Daniel Libeskind and Coop Himmelblau are closer to Iconism more so than deconstructivism, reliable discussion, critics, views and theoretical papers in relation to their deconstruction and context are lacking.
16
2.2 Deconstructivism to Iconism Architectural production has become ever more engulfed in a media-driven and marketing-oriented world. In the times when context is inherently important to architecture in 1950s, architectural theory are built theory. However in current days, there is a high tendency by the critics and theorists to create a disjunction between design theory and what is actually built. The disjunction is fortuitous and later abused to respond in today’s media-driven culture, as it allows mental construction; a cheaper, faster alternative to actually building it. Mental construction of architecture allows it to be produced and consumed far quicker and easier than building itself. Architecture is an active principal component in the making of culture. However, it is a very tangible and expensive one at that, if it is to be builtiii Provocative theory stretches the limits of a discipline- a healthy and necessary exercise but with the power of today’s media, with its insatiable appetite for the next new thing, it have the potential to surrender the tangible nature of architecture. (Bruce Thomas, 1997) Today's media culture depends on the availability of an inexhaustible supply of new images. Increasingly, evidence suggests that the image is independent from, and more important than, the reality it supposedly represents. The coercive nature of marketing that turns architecture into a consumer product and makes practice primarily the creation of designer labels encourages millennial architects in creating architecture with deconstruction theory as the theory excels in creating “otherness”, “newness”. The quest for “otherness” that motivates the efforts of the neo-avant-garde is glorified and exemplified in the work of Peter Eisenman and Bernard Tschumi, as it is in the writings of posthumanist authors like Michael Hays and Mark Wigley. While Bruce Thomas (1997) warns us to reexamine the media’s relation to architecture critically in term of a contemporary theory issue: the issue of “newness.” In Bernard Tschumi’s lectures held at AA School of Architecture in 2013iv and University of Belgrade in 20141, Tschumi openly raised about the issue of Images and Iconism, in which he asserts a strong stance opposing it. Bernard Tschumi suspected that the Iconism started from an exhibition in New York City at 11th September 2001 followed immediately by a campaign by the New York Times in attempt to search for images and icons for New York City. The new icons, took away the critical discourse 17
and the attempts in finding certain contradiction and certain subtext within architecture.i Tschumi do not allow his student in the usage of the word “Form”. In his own word: “We live in an era I will call it just-ended-the-Iconism era, when everybody is trying to do fancy building; in which everyone trying to compete with each other in signs without any signification, that you realized that sometime you stuck with these type of situation if you don’t quite have all the information. If you ask to design a city, city is so complex you have to take an assumption. You have to take a shortcut. You have to make a hypothesis and in that moment that hypothesis may have to do with a form and that’s really a little problematic, because that form is seen as a concept, I will call it a Concept-Form.” Tschumi is subtlely critiquing some of his fellow deconstructivist friend, whom which their content derived largely relying on form-making in generating icons. From the dialogue above, one main messages are derived from it. First being the contemporary issue of complex project with their increasing complexity encourages designer to take a shortcut into Iconism. By applying deconstructivism and using the instruments provided by the Deconstructivists, designer could simply fall into taking a shortcut into Iconism disregarding the context and the original intention of deconstructivism in architecture: to question, raises question and form new meaning and relationship.
In Deconstruction Form-making without
=
Iconism
Raising Question/ Providing Answer In Tschumi’s lecture at Belgrade in 20141, Bernard Tschumi suspected that the Iconism started from an exhibition in New York City at 11th September 2001 followed immediately by a campaign by the New York Times in attempt to search for images and icons for New York City. The new icons, took away the critical discourse and the attempts in finding certain contradiction and certain subtext within architecture.i 18
Alienated modern subjectivity is claimed to be confronted by deconstructivists. Peter Eisenman stated that he produce equally alienated ‘posthumanist’ objects to confront the alienated modern subjectivity. Libeskind in the Jewish Museum also claimed that he attempted to use the physical experience of alienation induced through the occupation of architectural form as a method for intensifying narrative programme. Zaha Hadid has claimed to be involved in an implicitly politicised ‘continuation of the unfinished modern project’ and certainly in schemes like the Leipzig BMW plant, it might be argued that the formal abstractions employed by the architect intensify the spatial experience of the modern programme to confront the alienated modern subjectivity. (Cunningham, D. & Goodbun J., 2006) Charles Jencks published book “The Architecture of the Jumping Universe” recompiled his thought in new theories that dealt with the beginnings of the universe or ‘cosmogenesis’. Discussed within are a growing shared language of expression with aesthetic of undulating movement, of surprise, billowing crystals, fractured glass, and spiraling growth, of wave-forms, twists and folds- a language more in tune with an unfolding, jumping cosmos than the rigid architecture of the past. (Haddad E., 2009) Works of Eisenman, Hadid, Gehry and Libeskind are celebrated by Jencks who appeared at the forefront of this radical development. In Jenck’s view, ‘post-modern’ continuously revised to accommodate additions and changes. Thus, the eclecticism could be seen in continuity with the earlier works of Gehry, which his style shifted abruptly from new language first witnessed in the Vitra Museum to Disney Concert Hall and the Bilbao Museum. (Jencks, 1997) As mentioned in the book, aesthetic theories legitimized “The New Paradigm in Architecture” in which it indicates a comeback of the language of Post-modernism, which features Libeskind’s Jewish Museum in the book cover. Frank Gehry’s eclecticism is easy or even imperative to be as a major representative of the transition between the two phases of Post-Modernism. Paradigm of ‘Fractal Architecture’ is created to describe work of Libeskind’s Jewish Museum, in addition to works by Coop Himmelblau. While Frank Gehry are presented as ‘Fluid Fractals’, best translated in the Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao, which is compared in its metaphorical richness to the chapel of Ronchamp. (Haddad E., 2009)
19
The strong visual element shown in this paradigm of disjunction creates confusion among the global audience’s attempts in defining deconstruction and formulate their understanding towards deconstructivist. The idea of deconstruction to only be related to destruction, fractal, or fluid dynamic movement as the visual indicator of deconstructivism could be seen and introduced to students, public in the general journals and appeared in the headline of publications, while theorists that lacks such aesthetic quality such as Peter Eisenman, Bernard Tschumi and Rem Koolhaas suddenly appeared ‘less deconstructivism’. The philosophy of deconstruction in which meaning could be altered and changed have affected the definition of context between the conformist and the radical Deconstructivists, such effect also creates conflict and affected the definition of Deconstructivism among the Deconstructivists. At a recent panel discussion for the 25th anniversary of the exhibition, Wigley asked, “Could an exhibition similar to Deconstructivist Architecture happen today?” Tschumi’s offered that a show now would be called ‘Iconism’, addressing the obsessions of architects to make icons”. (John Hill, 2013) If the report was accurate, Tschumi was thereby calling for an exhibition criticizing the position that he and his peers had implicitly endorsed a quarter of a century ago. As the Deconstructivists created instrument of Deconstructivism to be liberate in context, one particular group of architects understood the context of such liberation, while another group of architects explored the limit of such liberation, without revisiting the original intention and philosophy of deconstruction, creating pure icons of Concept-Form. While architectural contextualism was harshly attacked after the 1980s due to its conformism and association with postmodernism, Tschumi’s comments make clear that context in architecture needs to be revisited.
20
2.3 Contextualism In the 1980s, contextualism was mainly associated with conformity and visual compatibility with the surrounding built environment. Keith Ray noted an increasing familiarity with the terms reservation, restoration, adaptive use, and contextual design due to the growing interest in historical buildings in America. He stated that: “To remain of service to society, these ‘historical buildings’ have to be modified for new uses—or new buildings have to be inserted among the existing ones to maintain the living fabric of our cities. But modification to existing buildings and new buildings cognizant of their surroundings present unfamiliar design relationships between the new and old. Contextual design, designing in relation to the context, then, is the point of this book. It elucidates the design relationship between old and new buildings by illustrating the variety of options available. (Ray K., 1980)” On the other hand, among the theoretical paper of deconstructivism, since churches are turned into movie houses, banks into restaurants, hat factories into artists' studios, subway tunnels into nightclubs, and sometimes nightclubs into churches. There is a loss of meaning in the built architecture and its meaning. The disjunction in between a program and its use further signified in the legitimizing the deconstruction of context: Does architecture really have to harmonize and communicate with surrounding context if the surrounding context itself loss its original meaning and currently in a disharmony and chaos in its political, social, soft side of context? The debate are brought on a round table of discussion at the 1988’s Deconstructivist Architecture Exhibition in the Museum of Modern Art’s (MOMA’s). Avant-garde architects came together to attack postmodernism and its contextualism. Curators Philip Johnson and Mark Wigley asserted that “contextualism” has been used as an excuse for mediocrity, for a dumb servility to the familiar.” (Wigley M, Johnson P., 1988) There are few studies held on context from the 1990s onwards. One was introduced in the 74th volume of Lotus published in 1992. The discussion started with an introductory essay, “Contextualism?” where contextualism in architecture is associated with hermeneutics in philosophy, which set the framework for the nine articles that followed. Jane Wolford’s PhD dissertation titled “Architectural Contextualism in the Twentieth 21
Century, with Particular Reference to the Architects E. Fay Jones and John Carl Warnecke”, completed at the Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, in 2004, and is one of the most recent pieces of research on contextualism. However, her depiction of the elements of contextualism as “specific siting, general locale, shape, size, color of material, texture of material, type of material, position, style, rhythm of elements, scale/proportion, identity” again falls within the established (rather than critical) understanding of the term. The radical approach in place making is explored by Deconstructivists. According to architectural discourse and practice are usually about endorsing the present state of things instead of proposing alternative futures, there is a growing dissatisfaction with the estrangement of architecture from political and social concerns. Radical architecture interest us today for their capacity to imagine a different future. Conversely, the influence radical architecture has exerted on designers such as Koolhaas or Tschumi tend to demonstrate that utopia is not necessarily a sterile concept, that it can steer architecture and provoke its renewal.v (Picon. A, 2013) Reasoning behind such scenario matches the nature of questioning in architecture (while not necessarily provide an answer) in a context of which the societal felt a need for an expression of radical difference, discouraged in the continuation of existing societal norms. New architectural pragmatists are claiming today an engaged architectural practice taking into account as “how the context and the view complete the work of art”, they do not and perhaps not willing to generate critical, theoretical, and discursive reflection on context. Rem Koolhaas ignore contextual concerns since the purpose of their pragmatism is to allow them to operate in different territories under contradictory political regimes and social conditions. (Esin, 2015) By contextualizing context presented opportunity of architectural practices to be both critical and engaged. There is an urgent need to present context as a corrective to both the polemicists of architecture’s autonomy and the evasive position adopted by the new pragmatists.
22
2.4 Claims and Critics of Deconstructivist architecture Miller Leigh (2015) claims that the exhibition was based on visual stylistic similarity to Russian Constructivism from the 1920’s, rather than on any strong theoretical basis. Nikos A. Salingaros and Christopher Alexander, the so called traditionists and conformists by the deconstructivist have described as the new Vitruvius for 21st-century by Ashraf M. Salam with their strong belief in architecture of harmony, full coherence that follows the nature of orders in pursue of timeless architecture. Both of them remains as one of the strongest opposing view against deconstructivism. They have published several books including a book titled Anti-Architecture and Deconstruction as a direct responds representing their strong stance towards deconstruction. In Nikos’s definition the theories of deconstructivism does no stands as an architectural theory. (Nikos. 2008) Nikos brought up the lack of strict definition and control on the theorizing process of deconstructivist architectural theory legitimizes a series of invalid architectural theories that formulate architectural cult and trends. (Nikos. 2008) Nikos describes deconstruction as a virus, a virus he named as Derrida Virusvi that it have the ability to parasitically acts on something which is order and then destroy them. It attacks on logic and erases normal way of thinking that undermine any original meaning via a complex and entirely self-referential play of words. (Scruton, 2000) The tension between deconstruction and Nikos. A. Salingaros heighten in a public debate between Peter Eisenman and Christopher Alexander in 1982vii in which Peter Eisenman fights for his radical approach of suggesting that disharmony might be part of the cosmology that we exist in while Christopher Alexander are strongly against having elements of disharmony or incoherence in the built environment. Both parties do not reach an agreement nor compromise to each other approach until the end of the debate. In Parc De La Villette, both the finalists Bernard Tschumi and Rem Koolhaas are not enemy but allying against the modernist Leon Krier. Leon Krier stands as one of the opposing critic and force against deconstructivism. Leon Krier claimed to be an advocate of stringent rationalist idea and choose not to invent form per se but the find architecture essence in traditional forms. (Smithson P, 1961) Eisenman in opposing Krier’s position, argues that architecture is about expressing the contemporary condition of man. Where, for krier, universal ideas exist, consisting of the most 23
intelligent and best solutions that have proven themselves in the past, for Eisenman, it is about the deep-rooted or built-in structures of things exists that need to be expressed.viii Eisenman developed his theory of deep structure from the theory of the generative transformational grammar developed in those years by Noam Chomsky. In the late 1950s, Noam Chomsky countered the theories of behavioral psychology which saw the emergence of language as habits developed to respond to environmental conditionings. According to Chomsky, language is natural and universal, because it is possessed by any individual at a birth. In the way how Noam Chomsky theory are translated into architecture received critic from Gandelsonas. Gandelsonas firstly stated the fact that architecture cannot be ascribed to language since while everyone is able to produce linguistic utterances, only architects are able to design space. Therefore, the creativity of the architecture is not comparable to the innate creativity of humans. Gandelsonas also point out that the deep structure – alledgedly innate capacity of intuition of form through spatial categories is in fact not so deep. (Amir Djalali, 2017) Peter Eisenman responded to the critics of Gandelsonas with more architectural writing operations and developed further theories and advanced ideological tools to conceal the truth at stake: namely the crisis of architecture coinciding with the impotence of architecture and architects in producing positive changes to reality, in which Eisenman’s theories failed in addressing. (Amir Djalali, 2017) Manfredo Tafuri, an Italian architect, historian, theoretician, critic and academic, also have criticizes some of the work of deconstructivism. In Tafuri opposes the practice of critique whereas critique is to find the origin of the meanings of the signs employed in a text, criticism swerves from that impossible task: signs cannot speak, but they should be forced to act. (Amir Djalali, 2017) Deconstructivist Bernard Tschumi have also mentioned the limitation of signs and interpretation as Between signifier and signified stands a barrier: the barrier of actual use, although there is no cause-and-effect relationship between an architectural sign and its possible interpretation.(Bernard Tschumi, 1994)
24
Bruce Thomas (1997) commented on deconstructivist in not moving forward and showing progression in architecture. Despite the radical nature of what deconstructivist espouse, it either moves backward, sideward, up or down, not necessarily progressing forward. He also stated that deconstructivist attempt to be different for the sake of being different, in his own word: "It is not difficult to be unconventional in the eyes of the world when your unconventionality is bur the convention of your set. It affords you then an inordinate amount of self-esteem. You have the self-satisfaction of courage without the inconvenience of danger." Context was critically questioned with deconstruction. Being critical and raising question in search for answer is a way to discover answer. But sometime, there is no answer. In ‘‘Critical of What?’’ a reply to an essay by George Baird entitled ‘‘Criticality’ and Its Discontents’’ Reinhold Martin begins by asking the right question. He distinguishes between two kinds of critique: a critique of the discipline from within (e.g., Peter Eisenman’s efforts to establishing autonomy within the architectural spaces and form making) and a critique from without. (Fully reliant on context) It is necessary to go further with this question and Joan Ockman (2009) insist that ‘‘criticality’’ in itself is an empty signifier. Criticism is a method, a practice, at most an orientation. It has no inherent content. (Joan Ockman, 2009) Derrida himself was at pains to insist that deconstruction was not a philosophy or theory but a method. You can deconstruct the ingredients in a pie, the formal composition of a facade, or the spatial gentrification of a city. The stakes (context) are not the same, however. Baird G. (n. d.) criticizes the criticality of Eisenman and Rem Koolhaas to be much less critical than many had expected them to be, and stated that Eisenman’s own design interest would increasingly focus on process rather than products. A critical position in architecture remains essential, but needs to be made more cunning in its evaluation of and response to cultural context. (Fraser M., 2005) Manuel J. (2008) further adds on the issue of questioning as such that It is forgotten that criticism is also History and that, in any case, it raises questions but does not advance solutions, in a process in which architecture appears always in continuous transformation. Emphatically, anti-historicism (and therefore the refusal of criticism), 25
either of those that deny history, or of those that use it like an available collection of codes (from an already obsolete formal postmodernism, to the regulations that govern interventions in historic cities), has led to the mystification of architecture and the biased manipulation of its potentialities, on the part of capital and dominant ideology.
26
3.0 Case Study
3.1 Peter Eisenman Peter Eisenman introduces architectural autonomy, which was widely disseminated through the Institute for Architecture and Urban Studies founded by the American architect Peter Eisenman and its journal, Oppositions. Architectural historian Manfredo Tafuri viewed autonomy as a resistance to the capitalist cycle of productiondistribution-consumption, Eisenman’s framing of autonomy was rather seeking to codify architecture as a self-contained discipline having its own intrinsic formal principles while defining context as extrinsic to the architectural design process. Context as an intrinsic value of architectural design faded away after 1980s when contextualism imposed a blinkered understanding and was subsequently challenged by the autonomy paradigm. (Esin, 2015) Eisenman’s most recent buildings such as The Convention Center of Ohio, or the Arnoff Center for Design and Art aim to free form from material and space from the logic of frame structure. (Gevork H., 2001) The theory and exploration formulated in his exploration within the architectural language and its meaning in his Houses project and his popular project The Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe in Berlin, Germany creates experiences that are able to communicate and comprehend meaning within itself without relying on surrounding context. In an interview between Peter Eisenman and Vladimir Belogolovskyix, in his own words: “I don’t have a single idea as some other architects. For example, Richard Meier does his buildings the same way no matter where he is doing them. My work therefore is contextual. I wouldn’t say it is vernacular, but it always begins with the context. So I couldn’t do the same building in Santiago, Berlin, or Phoenix, Arizona. Therefore, I don’t have a style. Buildings by Frank Gehry and Michael Graves all have the same look. Mine don’t have the same look.”
27
The meaning of Eisenman’s context and imageability here communicates towards a global audience. In his other project and approach during the same interview, Eisenman reasoning and context for the application of deconstruction and autonomy in architecture creates architecture where in his own word: “You have to go and see it because you cannot draw it. You cannot cognitively understand what is going on. One has to see it and experience it in a way that is very different conceptually in terms of what I was after in the first.” The strategy and thinking thus presented here have two design quality in the cyberdriven hyper reality in which the fact that the building doesn’t rely surrounding context in the communication of meaning to its users, the building which is not contextual to the surrounding is able to stands out among the surrounding to be recognizable as a landmark or distinguished as an own entity. The second design quality in which presented here is important, while the image and Iconism of the building is strong, the experience and narrative of the building could only be experienced when the user is there, thus it itself serve as a tease that encourage visitation from global tourism. The reoccurring element of the two quality between his idea and understanding of context is in scale; contextual is no longer so much about the local context and the physical surrounding of the site, it is more so of the global context, political and social context. Eisenman approaches to Asia and practice is passive and indifferent to the realm of practice in general and to the forces of urbanization and modernization in parts of Asia in particular. (Jianfei Zhu, 2005) Peter Eisenman is described as a contemporary architectural theorist which is antirationalism and critical. Peter Eisenman saw irony as a model of self-reflexivity to be emulated in architecture. Eisenman’s irony inevitably implies a return to language: what Tafuri saw as a sign of failure. Petit here insists on Eisenman’s interest in ‘the paradoxes of the meaning of architectural form and in the division between the physical and the conceptual, a division which provokes the conceptual instability of architectural space. (Szacka, 2014) Peter Eisenman’s 1995 essay ‘Critical architecture in a geopolitical world’ identifies the rise of geo-politics since the 1970s, replacing the old class-politics of communism versus capitalism. (Jianfei Zhu, 2005) In the Architecture Exhibition in Milan and the Museum of Modern Art Exhibition, Eisenman’s text, Post28
functionalism formulated a critique of the perceptions generated by the rationalists. For Eisenman, the true modernist sensibility lay in the fact that modernists had recognized the displacement of humanity from the center of the world. (G. Bekaert, C. Van Gerrewey (2011) Thus, rather than rejecting the modernist project on the basis of a simplified association with functionalism, Eisenman claimed that he have cultivated a sensibility to arrive at the post-functionalist condition. Eisenman concentrated on the formal to present an alternative reading of the meaning of form and claimed to be the true heir of modernist intellectuality. (Verbruggen S., 2017) Despite receiving fair amount of critics towards his attempt of creation of meaning with built forms, Eisenman himself understood his limit as he repeatedly stated that his work confronts an alienated modern subjectivity through the production of equally alienated ‘posthumanist’ objectx. 3.1.1
City of Culture of Galicia
To be completed in the next semester.
29
3.2 Bernard Tschumi Bernard Tschumi main interest lies in film and literary theory and intertextuality. In the critical discourse of architecture and education, Tschumi raises the importance in the constant questioning of spaces and believes in challenging the maximum of limits. Film and literature do not count as architecture, but in the case of Manhattan Transcripts, it provide us possible way to develop critical theory through discoveries of parallel conditions found in all art. (Donald Kunze, 2007) Tschumi’s work merit particular attention in the aspect of engaging with the ongoing problematics of how architectural present is to be related to future. (David Cunningham, 2001) In the theoretical paper of Tschumi ‘Six Concept’ he once asserts ‘architecture is about the design of conditions that will dislocate the most traditional and regressive aspects of our society and simultaneously reorganize these elements in the most liberating way.’ Besides, Tschumi have also use a radical conceptual language to express his more marginal views, fuses violence, space, eroticism and architecture. Tschumi asserts that the strength of architecture as a catalyst, in its subversiveness, is in its ‘disjunction’ between the concept of the space and the experience of the space. (Tara Short, 1998) Tschumi states: “There is no cause-and-effect relationship between the concept of space and the experience of space, or between buildings and their uses, or space and the movement of bodies within it” (Bernard Tschumi, 1994) This condition cause the space to be in a constant state of transgression, and the transgression is the element of friction needed for change. Tschumi’s combination of change on the scale of the user can be traced to Henri Lefebvre’s ideas of everyday life as a means of bridging the modern condition of alienation. (Tara Short, 1998) In Tschumi’s architectural proposals, the desired ‘transgression’ transpires because of the conflict between the formal nature of the design and the everyday activities that it must contain. He proposes that events within architecture, the use or misuse of space as he calls it, can be architecture’s relation to politics. In the project Parc de La Villette, Tschumi creates what seems to be an enclave in the landscape of submission. Tschumi applies deconstruction philosophy and deconstruct the system from the inside out; by using signs but destroying their meaning and context. 30
In ‘Point de Folie’, a writing by J. Derrida (1997) about Bernard Tschumi’s Parc de La Villette, Derrida outlines 4 invariables in architectural culture: 1) architecture must have a meaning, it must present it and through it signify. 2) The signifying or symbolical value of this meaning must direct the structure and syntax, the form and function of architecture. 3) It must direct it from outside. 3) It is the language of a formalist, in which the stability of meaning in traditional architecture is related to the stability of its formal structures. (J. Derrida, 1997) Derrida argues that Tschumi’s follies ‘deconstruct first of all, but not only, the semantics of architecture’. (J. Derrida, 1997) Tschumi stated that the term park (like architecture, science, or literature) has lost its universal meaning; it no longer refers to a fixed absolute nor to an ideal. (Bernard Tschumi, 1994) The project a weaving of grids, points and surface is held up as a challenge to the authority of previous architecture, seen to destabilize meaning, to question those invariables mentioned by J. Derrida. In the project, J. Derrida, Tschumi and Peter Eisenman got together to discuss the project outcome. The philosopher and architects is beguiled into believing that an analysis of form which catalyzed by a metaphoric relationship of architecture to philosophy, can lead to an instrumental theory of form which in the end distances the production and perception of architecture by turning it into a detached object of analysis. (Jeremy Till, 1999) Tschumi’s pluralism should not be misread as a reflection of our society but rather as a means of deconstructing the identities of these signs. Tara Short (1998) feels that the juxtaposition of these parks has provided a prosperous dialogue for the interpretation of the body in contemporary forms. In his lecture of Architecture of Deconstruction Tschumi stated that questions to be raised are limited based on the same context. In order to obtain new answer or raises new question, a re-invention of context is required.i In Bernard Tschumi’s lecture introducing his book “Red is Not a Color” held at AA School of Architecture in 2013xi Tschumi claimed that the completed Acropolis Museum conceptualizes the context. In his own word he said:
31
“Acropolis Museum have a complicated context, so we will take the context and then try to make it into a concept. Conceptualizing the context. Sometime you do the exact opposite, you take the concept and you try to contextualize it.” This claims justified a need for a closer look on the relationship between the project Acropolis Museum and the context. 3.2.2
Acropolis Museum, Athens
Bernard Tschumi was selected as the winning project in the second competition for the design of the New Acropolis Museum. Tschumi’s design of acropolis museum revolves around three concepts: light, movement, and a tectonic & programmatic element, which together “turn the constraints of the site into an architectural opportunity, offering a simple and precise museum” with the mathematical and conceptual clarity of ancient Greek Buildings. The new Acropolis Museum is situated at the southern base of the Acropolis. Set only 800 feet away from the legendary Parthenon, the museum will be the most significant building ever erected so close to the ancient temple.
32
In the lecture he gave in Bernard Tschumi’s “Red is Not a Color” Lecture held at AA School of Architecture in April 2013iv where he presented the main concept and design strategy of Acropolis Museum under the title “Conceptualizing Context”. There are three contextual constraint and particularity: 1) The first question Tschumi askes in the presentation is “How do you as an architect compete with the Parthenon? Can you do that? So you have to be very arrogant.” Shows a particularity on site – Presence of Parthenon, in which Tschumi responded to compete with, rather than harmonizing with. 2) The site is filled with ruins, archeological remnants that architect need to avoid touching them. 3) One of the key reason to build the building is to convince the British to return the Elgin Marbles (sculptures taken from the Parthenon in 1802) to their country of origin.
33
The three particularities and conditions established the political context of the project. Tschumi stated that the design concept is a direct clear expression of these particular constraints. a) Rectangular glass that allows viewing the long strip of horizontal frieze (marble sculpture created to adorn the upper part of the Parthenon's naos), framed Parthenon within the gallery, and is oriented exactly in parallel to the Parthenon.
Gallery with the returned Elgin Marbles, with the framed Parthenon in the background as the gallery is oriented directly towards the Parthenon.
34
b) Museum to hover above with stilts the archaeological remnants, as there are still archaeological excavation.
c) Material is important with the choice of raw concrete to accompany the ancient marble exhibits which is designed to establish a dialogue with the sculpture in marble itself. The marble reflects light, the concrete absorbs light.
35
d) The glass volume slightly shifted in a relationship to what’s beneath: as the street pattern of the old city is not the same as the direct of the temple.
e) Concept of building being tripartite: having 3 parts.
The fact that the building is rectangular with the circulation being at the perimeter along the displaying marble frieze creates an animating viewing experience to the visitor. Tschumi concluded the design concept of the Acropolis Museum with the design strategy and implementation shown above in his lecture while presenting Tschumi’s knowledge of “Conceptualizing Context” to the student of AA School of Architecture.iv 36
Nikos A. Salingaros (2004) criticizes the Acropolis Museum to not contemporary and not harmonizing with anything at the foothill of the Acropolis. It simply is a reproduced the discredited typologies of the early Modernists from the 1920s. It avoids any relation to its historic environment, remaining an introverted expression of selfishness – A glass greenhouse in Athens’s harsh summer heat. (Nikos, 2004) Tschumi explained that the Marble Artifact have to be kept indoor in order to protect the marble from pollutions. In Nikos perspective the Greeze is suffering from an intense feeling of inferiority that it denies its rich heritage and called upon the so-called expert (Bernard Tschumi) to build alien structures. The Acropolis Museum is further described to have no coherence, no logic and near zero degree of architectural life. (Salingaros, 2006) A total of 25 houses were demolished to make space for the new museum. Two legally protected neoclassical building built in 1930s are threaten to be demolished in order to give it a better view of the Acropolis. The removal would costs serious damage to Athens’s historic urban fabric.
37
The new Acropolis Museum highlights several aspects of the late eighteenth-century critique of de-contextualisation. Through lighting, scale and framing, Tschumi’s potential re-contextualisation raises profound issues of historicity, durability and perhaps some form of museum-historical revisionism. (Mari Lending, 2009) As the Elgin Marbles was originated from the Museum site, it has been altered and contextualized into the British Museum. With the Parthenon collection come to the totality, what does the re-contextualisation signify? The voids and the replicas of the Elgin Marbles on Tschumi’s top-floor installation nourish themselves on the many antitheses and paradoxes at work in the museum. The rumor of inauthenticity continues to haunt the discourse of museum. The strategy behind the design proposed by Tschumi into having an open top-floor installation gallery is to convince the British Government that it is time to return the Elgin Marbles (sculptures taken from the Parthenon in 1802) to their country of origin. In a bold gesture of optimism, the upper floor of the museum will remain empty awaiting the imminent return of the Elgin Marbles. As Tschumi
optimistically declares: "I truly believe that the day the museum is finished, the marbles will return". (Salingaros, 2004) With the marble frieze and Elgin marbles being displayed within the museum, Tschumi’s structure re-contextualizes the exhibits by reconstruction, thus performing a de-contextualisation in the spirit of Quatremere, evoking the lost totality. (Mari Lending, 2009) Mari Lending commented on the upper floor of the new museum in carrying a topomimetic dimension in the repetition of the Parthenon’s scale and orientation within an only-marginally displaced setting. The reconstruction of the temple’s dimensions in the new Acropolis Museum allows each element to be studied in detail while our imagination may grasp the lost totality – and possibly gain insight into the effort required to attain the original construction’s perfect. Thus, Tschumi’s announcement reads not only as an echo, but as a realization of a perspective formulated almost two hundreds ago: ‘The orientation of the Marbles will be exactly as it was at the Parthenon centuries ago, and their setting will provide an unprecedented context for understanding the accomplishments of the Parthenon complex itself.’(Tschumi, 2004) It is highly unlikely that Quatreme` re would have recommended a radical reconstruction, and inconceivable that Tschumi for a second would have contemplated anything comparable. What Tschumi achieves by reconstructing scale and orientation is to enable a recontextualisation by means of the 38
two elements common to the original and the contemporary context: dimension and light. Hence, the new Museum has become a historically reflective but non-historicist comment on the history of the Parthenon. (Mari Lending, 2009) The social, ritual, religious and functional context of the Parthenon temple has changed several times. The statues in London have—off situ—played a decisive roˆ le in the process that made the temple on the Acropolis one of the most paradigmatic buildings in the world. (Mari Lending, 2009)
39
3.3 Rem Koolhaas Rem Koolhaas used irony to insist on architecture’s capacity to emanate from the paradoxical fantasies of the human imaginary. The irony presented here is communicated in words, images and narratives. (Szacka, 2014) Koolhaas exists in the grey zone. His projects, because they are radical mixtures of urban functions, are even Post-Modern when they exploit metaphor, symbolism and the radical diversity of function. But his intentions remain ironic and descriptive about amnesia and the tabula rasa; as an ultra-Modernist he looks to exploit, not counter, these forces of capitalism. (Haddad E., 2009) Koolhaas continues to come up with strategy in his architectural projects to probe and exploit the fissures in the latest and ever more globalized version of capitalism. (Fraser M., 2005) Koolhaas, when discussing large buildings, stated: “Bigness is no longer part of any urban tissue. It exists; at most, it coexists. Its subtext is fuck context”. (Koolhaas R., Mau B., Werlemann H., 1995) Contradictory, Rem Koolhaas is described and could be seen as the most rational among the deconstructivist as Koolhaas advocates on rationalist idea such as putting programmatic desires before formal ones. (Verbruggen S., 2017) “The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposite ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function” quoting F. Scott Fitzgerald (Rem Koolhaas, 1978) that highlighted the theme of acknowledgement and incorporation of contradictions which runs throughout the work of Koolhaas. (Lara Schrijver, 2008) Rem Koolhaas not only refers the contradiction but employs concept to harness and utilize these inherent contradictions in their designs, a use of the oxymoron as a design tool. This is due to the increasingly heterogeneous realty that architecture is confronted with. Oxymoron allows for the diversity of urban life to flourish within the confines of a specific architectural container. It situate architecture as a strategic intervention within the plurality of the contemporary city that does not attempt to create a formal unity in order to smooth over contradictions. (Lara Schrijver, 2008) The role of form in the work of OMA is not about the autonomy of form as an experimental drive within the limits of the discipline that take no account of possible 40
extrinsic value and external realities. Fritz Neumeyer gave credit to the encompassing ambivalence of the work of Rem Koolhaas in his article ‘OMA’s Berlin’ noting that Koolhaas creates building with field of programme realized in its purest form as it seems almost without architectural intervention. (Neumeyer, 1990) As similarly with the objective of deconstruction in the search of new meaning and reading, Koolhaas do not believe in form as the primary vessel of meaning. Koolhaas implies that the systematic exploration of various architectural forms is necessary to understand the contemporary metropolis. (Lara Schrijver, 2008) The Office for Metropolitan find its metropolitan character in the presence of opposing ‘realities’, and use architectural specificity in order to encourage multiplicity of urban forms. Koolhaas use the design tool of oxymoron to allow him a freedom of design by creating a framework rather than a specific formal ‘style’ and Koolhaas will readily accept the beauty of reality as it is. (Lara Schrijver, 2008) When Rem Koolhaas published Delirious New York, his position also became apparent. Koolhaas suggested that the impact of architects is questionable and that it is an illusion to think that architecture has control of culture and society as it is being formed or transformed. The coexisting forces in the making of New York translated into a Cartesian grid for the city, an architecture with a rational and pragmatic plan, and overall shapes that allowed for the maximal freedom to house both real and surreal aspects of the city’s lifestyle. For Koolhaas, the debate on form, therefore, had to be separated from the debate on architectural performance. (Verbruggen S., 2017)
3.3.1
CCTV Headquarter
Koolhaas approach to Asia and practice is to being open to absorb ideas and energies from the realm of practice. Master form, or the collective form captured and intensified the dynamic, congested life in the Asian city. Due to demographic pressures and the speed of urbanization, the heroic modern form acquired vitality and a new life in Asia from the 1960s while Koolhaas aimed to absorb these ideas and energies, as shown in Koolhaas’s book S, M, L, and XL. The idea of the collective and meta-forms in particular resurfaced clearly in the recent Book City and CCTV Headquarter project in 41
Beijing. (Jianfei Zhu, 2005) Murray Fraser has suggested that ‘the tactics for Koolhaas in recent projects are those of spatial transgression within different cultural contexts, as in the public right of way that is to snake through the CCTV headquarters in Beijing, or embedded spatial redundancy. (Fraser M. 2005) In this inter-regional, cross-cultural space, Koolhaas are absorbing currents and flows from China/Asia for a transformation of western critical thinking. Further, moving in between regions and cultures, at least between the West and China, Koolhaas becomes not only a bridge but also a third position external to both, a positon that enables him to be critical and ‘transgressive’ to certain traditions in both. Koolhaas is described as an impetus that is critical, progressive, pragmatic and diagrammatic, especially shown within Koolhaas’s book Great Leap Forward, in which it represents the beginning of a conceptual framework to describe and interpret the contemporary urban condition have surprised China as the content discovered within the book is objective (Jianfei Zhu, 2005) The pragmatism in Rem Koolhaas is signified in the spirit of deconstructivism of being ‘both/ and’ rather than ‘either/or’.
42
3.4 Data Collection of Context The reoccurring terms and qualitative focuses appeared among the claims, critiques, perspectives of the 3 case study in their definition of context are as follows: a) Political Context b) Cultural Context c) Social Context d) Programmatic Context e) Site Interferential Anchors (the usage of referencing to site elements in forming axis that changes built form) f) Unduplicable Imageability (quality of recognisability yet hard to be duplicated) g) Criticality (newness, otherness) h) Radicality i) Intrinsic (to engage new communication/meaning internally) j) Extrinsic (to engage new communication/meaning externally) Peter Eisenman
Bernard Tschumi
Rem Koolhaas
a) Political Context
b) Cultural Context
c) Social Context
d) Programmatic Context e) Site Interferential Anchors
f) Unduplicable Imageability
g) Criticality
h) Radicality i) Intrinsic Context j) Extrinsic Context
43
4.0 Discussion Analyzes and further discussions are to be completed in the next semester.
44
5.0 Conclusion Analyzes and further discussions are to be completed in the next semester.
45
6.0 References Bernard Tschumi (1976) The Manhattan Transcripts Bernard Tschumi (1994) Architecture and Disjunction (London, MIT Press, 1994) Bernard Tschumi (2004) ‘New Acropolis Museum, Athens, Greece’, GA document, nr. 79 (May, 2004) Bloom, H., Paul, D. M,. Derrida, J., Geoffrey, H. H., Hartman, J., Hillis, M., (1995) Deconstruction and Criticism Christopher Alexander, Murray Silverstein, Sara Ishikawa (1977) A Pattern Language Christopher Norris (1982) Deconstruction: Theory and Practice, 3rd Edition Johnson Philip & Mark Wigley (1988) Deconstructivist Architecture: The Museum of Modern Art, New York/Boston: Little, Brown. J. Derrida (1995) La Estrategia de la Descontrucion Nikos A. Salingaros (2004) Anti-Architecture and Deconstruction Nikos A. Salingaros (2006) A Theory of Architecture Nikos A. Salingaros (2008) Unified Architectural Theory Nikos A. Salingaros (2004) The New Acropolis Museum. [online] Available at: http://www.2blowhards.com/archives/001326.html [Accessed on 30th Nov 2017] Nikos A. Salingaros (2007) Architectural Cannibalism in Athens. [online] Available at: http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles7/SalingarosAthens.php [Accessed on 19th Nov 2017] Mari Lending (2009) Negotiating absence: Bernard Tschumi's new Acropolis Museum in Athens, The Journal of Architecture, 14:5, 567-589 Peter Noever (1991) Architecture in Transition: between Deconstruction and New Modernism Smithson P. (1961) O. Newman, ’New Frontiers in Architecture: Ciam ’59 in Otterlo’, in Documents of Modern Architecture, J. Joedicke, ed., (New York, Universe Books Inc., 1961). G. Bekaert, C. Van Gerrewey (2011) Rooted in the Real : Writings on Architecture 46
Verbruggen S. (2017) Change trumps tradition: the Atlantis project of Léon Krier, 1986–1992, The Journal of Architecture, 22:7 David Cunningham & Jon Goodbun (2006) Marx, architecture and modernity, The Journal of Architecture, 11:2, 169-185 Elie Haddad (2009) Charles Jencks and the historiography of Post-Modernism, The Journal of Architecture, 14:4, 493-510 Kate Nesbitt (1996) Theorizing a New Agenda for Architecture, An anthology of architectural theory 1965-1995 Larry Busbea (2007) Topologies: The Urban Utopia in France, 1960-1970 Neumeyer (1990) OMA’s Berlin : The Polemic Island in the City, Assemblage, 11 Léa-Catherine Szacka (2014) Irony; or, the Self-Critical Opacity of Postmodern Architecture, The Journal of Architecture, 19:3, 457-464 Rem Koolhaas (1978) Delirious New York Rem Koolhaas, Bruce Mau, and Hans Werlemann, SMLXL, New York: Monacelli Press, 1995, 502 Robert Venturi (1966) Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture Jianfei Zhu (2005) Criticality in between China and the West, The Journal of Architecture, 10:5, 479-498 Amir Djalali (2017): Eisenman beyond Eisenman: language and architecture revisited, The Journal of Architecture Stan Allen (2006) Tracing Eisenman: Peter Eisenman Gevork Hartoonian (2001) The limelight of the House-Machine, The Journal of Architecture, 6:1, 53-79 Leigh Miller (2015) Deconstructivist Architecture at the Museum of Modern Art: A Reevaluation Scruton, R. (2000) 'After Modernism' City Journal 10(2) Joan Ockman (2009) One for the Sandpile, Journal of Architectural Education Charles Jencks (1997) The Architecture of the Jumping Universe Charles Jencks (2002) The New Paradigm in Architecture: The Language of Postmodernism 47
Esin Komez Daglioglu (2015) The Context Debate: An Archaeology, Architectural Theory Review, 20:2, 266-279, Baird G. (n. d.) “Criticality” and Its Discontents. [online] Available at http://www.harvarddesignmagazine.org/issues/21/criticality-and-its-discontents [Accessed 29 Nov. 2017] Elam, D. (1994) Feminism and Deconstruction: Ms. En Abyme (London and New York, Routledge). Murray Fraser (2005) ‘The Cultural Context of Critical Architecture’, The Journal of Architecture, vol. 10, no. 3, p. 320 Bruce Thomas (1997) Culture, Merchandise, or Just Light Entertainment? New Architecture at the Millennium, Journal of Architectural Education Lara Schrijver (2008) OMA as tribute to OMU: exploring resonances in the work of Koolhaas and Ungers, The Journal of Architecture, 13:3, 235-261 Andrew Peckham (2016) Beyond formalism: the quiescent art of formal analysis in architecture, The Journal of Architecture, 21:5, 679-689 Manuel J. Martín–hernández (2008) For (a) theory (of architecture), The Journal of Architecture, 13:1, 1-7 John Haldane (1999) Form, meaning and value: a history of the philosophy of Architecture, The Journal of Architecture, 4:1, 9-20 Antoine Picon (2013) Learning From Utopia, Journal of Architectural Education, 67:1, 17-23 Iain Borden & Jane Rendell (2000) From chamber to transformer: Epistemological challenges in the methodology of theorised architectural history, The Journal of Architecture, 5:2, 215-228 Lynda H. Schneekloth & Robert G. Shibley (2000) Implacing Architecture into the Practice of Placemaking, Journal of Architectural Education Ray K. (1980) Contextual Architecture: Responding to Existing Style, New York: McGraw Hill John Hill, “Deconstructivist Architecture, 25 Years Later”, World-architects Emagazine, 28 January 2013, http://www.worldarchitects.com/pages/insight/deconstructivist-architecture-25 (accessed 5 October 2015).
48
David Cunningham (2001) Architecture, Utopia and the futures of the avantgarde, The Journal of Architecture, 6:2, 169-182 Tara Short (1998) Of mice and madness: questions of occupation interpreted through Disneyland and Parc de la Villette, The Journal of Architecture, 3:2, 147-169 J. Derrida (1997) ‘Point de Folie’, in N. Leach (ed.), Rethinking Architecture (London, Routledge, 1997) Donald Kunze (2007) “Minding the Gap” in Architectural Speculation, Journal of Architectural Education, 61:1, 54-61
49
7.0 Notes Quoted “By reinventing context you create new questions, or else you will end up with the same answer over and over again”, “the idea of a context is no longer match the height, the reality and the native language, the idea of the context today is, you can reinvent the context in any manner of way you cannot pretend like you are not a part of.” By the host in the timestamp of 41:38 to 41:55. Extracted and claimed to be tested as a fact in the online lecture footage of “Architecture of Deconstruction” by Bernard Tschumi held at University of Belgrade, April 2014. i
For some discussion of these issues see J. Haldane, ‘Cultural Theory, Philosophy and the Study of Human Affairs’, in J. Doherty et al. (eds.) Postmodernism and the Social Sciences (London, Macmillan, 1991). ii
This view is championed in the works of Spiro Kostof, particularly A History of Architecture•: Settings and Rituals (New York: Oxford University Press, 1985). In which Kostof explains, "Every building represents a social artifact of specific impulse, energy, and commitment. That is its meaning, and this meaning resides in its physical form. Neither material reality alone nor general background of culture will suffice to explain the peculiar nature of the building" iii
Bernard Tschumi’s “Red is Not a Color” Lecture held at AA School of Architecture in April 2013 where he discusses his recent published book, Red is Not a Color, a comprehensive documentation of his 30-year investigations as a designer, builder and theorist. iv
v
On the influence of radical architecture on Koolhaas or Tschumi, see for instance Dominique Rouillard, “‘Radical’ Architecture,” in Tschumi une Architecture en Projet: Le Fresnoy (Paris: Editions du Centre Georges Pompidou, 1993), 89–112. vi
"Part 11. The Derrida Virus." In Anti-Architecture and Deconstruction: The Triumph of Nihilism, 109-125. Solingen: Umbau-Verlag, 2004. Original Publication: TELOS, No. 126 (2003), pages 66-82 vii
The 1982 Debate between Christopher Alexander and Peter Eisenman, took place at the Graduate School of Design, Harvard University, on November 17 th 1982. Alexander gave a talk on The Nature of Orders shortly before the debate. Main heated argument within the debate revolving around the necessity of presence of the absence, the negative, disharmony and incoherence in architecture. More info could be found at : http://www.katarxis3.com/Alexander_Eisenman_Debate.htm Eisenman on Krier in: Yale University School of Architecture “Eisenman-Krier : Two Ideologies : A Conference at the Yale School of Architecture” (New York, The Monacelli Press, 2004), p. 31. viii
The third international conference from the “Contemporary Architecture: Iran and the World Dialogue” series in Tehran, Iran on 13th May 2014. The conference titled “From Autonomy to Automation: The work of Peter Eisenman” focuses on the defining legacy of Peter Eisenman spanning across 50 years of his intellectual and professional body of work. ix
x
See Michael Hayes, Modernism and the Post-Humanist subject: The Architecture of Hannes Meyer and Ludwig Hilberseimer (Cambridge, MA, MIT Press, 1992).
50