Deconstructing a Legacy

Deconstructivism is often questioned as being a style or an avant-garde movement against architecture or society that does not follow rules and specific aesthetics (Stouhi, 2020). To understand the concept of deconstructivism it is first important to appreciate the roots of its original texts in order to understand its translation.

Deconstructivism stems from a term coined by French philosopher ‘Jacques Derrida’ (Fig. 3). Born in 1930 into a Sephardic Jewish Family in the French Governed Algeria. He was educated in the French tradition studying Philosophy at the elite École Normale Supérieure (ENS) (Britannica, 2023). Through his early stages Derrida wrote a selection of important essays leading up to his success, especially relating to ‘Violence and Metaphysics’ (Lawlor, 2022). As Derrida pursued Philosophy his curiosity led his to publishing a series of Three Books almost all at Once ‘Writing and Difference’ ‘Voice & Phenomenon’ and ‘Of Grammatology’. Derrida used the term ‘Deconstruction’ in all Three books written, which caught on almost immediately in the philosophical world of Language (Lawlor, 2022). Ultimately, grabbing the attention of even the most unlikely of specializations. Architecture being the key antagonists of Deconstruction.

Although there is a misconception between ‘Deconstruction’ and ‘Deconstructivism’ as the Two branch from separate professions, they are both much more connected that it may seem. As a summery, deconstruction is a critical school of language, Derrida’s research in the philosophical field of literature brought us to the attention of Deconstruction. The Complexities of Derrida’s mind ask us to question if meaning is fixed? He implies that meaning is not stable and constantly in a state of flux determined by the context in which it is found (Rajput, 2019). What he is expressing is that written words in language form part of a subjective truth where we should look for meaning by deliberation with the approach of an unbiased eye. Derrida states that in Western culture there are hierarchies within binaries such as ‘light’ and ‘Dark’ that give the assumption that there is a dominant of the two oppositions when we see them with this bias view (Guignion, 2020). Ultimately, allowing us to deconstruct the original construct and find the true value of the original concept that is often overlooking in language by breaking it down to expose its underlying meaning (Rajput, 2019).

As a philosopher, these manifestations are contagious, especially in such a field where the underlying concept is detrimental to the way space is interpreted and designed. Therefore, the idea of deconstruction grew of huge interest in architecture and the translation between philosophy to architecture inspired Deconstructivism.

Forgiving Transgressions

The transgressions aim to open the door to what lies beyond the limits that are already imposed upon what we know and observe in architecture (Tschumi, 1996). As Derrida’s theory of ‘Deconstruction’ initially set out to question and criticise, architects such as Bernard Tschumi and Daniel Libeskind also set out to achieve the same with basic principles and rules that condition the very concept of how modernists look at space in this ‘Bias’ form. The transgressions on the other hand according to Tschumi; aim to break the conventional rules that have already been applied to what architects already see as ‘logical design’ without destroying them. Tschumi uses Three parts to what he calls the Transgressions.

Part One – The Paradox: Emphasising the strange ‘Paradox’ that seems to haunt architecture. He talks about the impossibilities of simultaneously questioning the ‘Nature of Space’ and the experience or making of ‘Real Space’ (Tschumi, 1996). In one way this implies the idea of questioning space to reveal its ‘limits’ allowing architecture to expose the real experience of itself when it is exposed to the ‘nature of space’. The paradox theory of the transgressions leading to what Tschumi is trying to say is also shown through the drawings on the ‘Transcripts’ (Fig. 4) as well as the ‘Micromegas’ (Fig. 5). These common factors seem to come together to conclude both architect’s theoretical approaches to the design of space as shown in (Fig. 6 and Fig. 7 – Micromegas and Transcripts illusions – annotated). Through these drawings they seem to suggest new horizons once we find the ‘limits’ that space already has imposed on us. As questions arise from these ‘limits’ the paradox starts to emerge from these questions of how and why – not from the architect; but from the existence that is in the space – the opposite binary of the designer: the reader or interpreter. What both architects seem to do at this stage is underlay the idea of challenging the users perception and encouraging them to think and experience space in a different way. Taking the initial concept of Derrida’s deconstructive approach by constantly allowing space to have this flux by engaging with the reader of a space using questions offered through visual interpretation, and the feeling that a space is given due to the readers own understanding. Contradicting the design itself by being an unfinished completion of space defined by architecture or architecture designed by space (Tschumi, 1996).

Part Two eROTicism: Tschumi later expands on the lead towards transgressions by explaining that there is a point in which these contradictions heavily influence deconstruction to be perceived in a contradictory way. What he finds interesting here is that the paradoxes are constantly contradicting each other. However, this is saying that each meaning is required by the other and vice versa. In order to find these meeting points we look at architecture as manipulating the physical form to create erotic emotion in a space or a sense of danger to enable us to feel this emotion created by the physical form of architecture that is around us. Tschumi processes this idea through two correspondences:

The first correspondence he uses is ‘eROTicism’ where he explains it is not the ‘excess of pleasure’ but instead ‘the pleasure of excess’. Understanding ‘eroticism’ is the double pleasure of both the mental construct and the sensuality (Tschumi,1996).

The Second Correspondence suggests that the junction between ‘ideal space’ and ‘real space’ are seen differently. He implies that architects rarely go against the imposed structure that society expects from architecture, such as the representation of social and political outlooks. Through this perception Tschumi suggests that social political structure of society expects architects to domesticate the deeper fears that society often ignores. (Tschumi, 1996). To Summarise, what the second correspondence is implying is that in order to look at eroticism and express this through the transgressions in correlation with the First Correspondence is that we bring these deeper fears to light in order to create the concept of ‘eroticism’ and enlighten these emotions that are created by pushing the physical and metal construct of space and architecture to offer these feelings of danger and unease in correlation with post-structural philosophy of Derrida’s theory of Deconstruction (Wigley, 1997).

Part Three – The Transgressions: Through the process, we head into the direction of disruption and challenging the conventions associated with Notion, Form and Space. The transgressions start to observe and cause the link between mutually interdependent aspects where spatial praxis meets the mental construct used to transgress form the rules already put in place. Secondly, time is relative in the concept of space and its transgressions from the original concept of time leaves its traces in the built form, past of future that is there to resemble everyday life and these traces left behind by the relativity of time are what Tschumi conveys “marks a building” (Tschumi, p.77, 1997).

Decisively, this meeting place explained by Tschumi causes the threat that challenges the autonomy and the distinction between the contrast of Concepts and Spatial Praxis and that there is a case of decay in architects that choose to question the conventional distinction between concepts and spatial praxis. Tschumi also introduces the idea that most architects work in relation to paradigms set through the education acquired in the study of architecture and elaborating that the specific characteristics that have implied these rules into these practical subsequent taboos that seem to remain fixed (Tschumi, 1997). To transgress, Bernard Tschumi starts to deconstruct these conventional paradigms of taboo as he implied that from these fixed positions starts to cause a state of rot or decay. The rules start to move and become a state of flux through the unveiling of them. The complex process is due to the fact that these hidden rules guide these specific architectural approaches that originally made them, which architects often find themselves fixated on because of the “Conditioning” – (Tschumi, p.78, 1997).

Conclusively, this transgressional concept that Tschumi instigates of architecture exists in a paradox of its own contradictions when the social expectations of architectural form are negated.

Tschumi idealises that the ever contradicting transcendent of paradoxical nature is not to destroy the very rules that make up the conditioned approach that architects are educated into following, but actually it is an act of transgression that ultimately challenges the conventions of the ornamented rules that order a structure in society and architecture. Pushing these ornamented rules into a state of flux by looking beyond these rules without destroying what is existing (Tschumi, 1997).

Through transgression it puts architecture into a perspective lens of sacrilegious and convergence of ideal and real space to overcoming these contradicting binaries as well as objectionable prevalence’s without destroying them (Tschumi, 1997).

As we now understand, deconstruction is a way criticising the very conventions of what we already know and don’t know. By criticising we ‘question’ these conventions. We can start to conceptualise these questions as architects by our own language specifically regarding drawing, to allow us to demonstrate that we are questioning space and finding its ‘limits’ (Tschumi, 1994). Tschumi’s thinking is captured in some of his famous drawings ‘The Manhattan Transcripts’ (Fig. 10) where he expands on his idea of notation, that architecture is almost like an experience of symbols that tell the user how the space can function and that these are the limits of space. However, with this said Tschumi goes further with this, stating that “The limits of my language are the limits of my world’. Any attempt to go beyond such limits, to offer another reading of architecture demanded the questioning of these conventions” (Tschumi, P.9, 1997). When Tschumi talks about the limits of his language he is criticising the conventional ways in which architects communicate their concepts such as plans, sections, elevations, and axonometric drawings but also the most accepted of all in modern architecture – Form Follows Function. Bernard Tschumi is saying that when we look at going beyond the pre-existing limits of space then we must first look at the conditioning of the original concept initially to then begin to question space itself (Tschumi, 1994).

Libeskind on the other hand contrasts with the philosophy and conceptualisation of the ‘Limits’ that space has to offer. He uses this concept in the dissolution of space by first beginning to materialise space as a physical entity that can be both present and absent in its rationality (Mandry, 2013). In Libeskind’s own way he questions space as if there are ‘limits’ to it – specifically referring to is as the “End of Space” – (Libeskind, p. 68, 2001). This concept is about finding these ‘Limits’ that have been superimposed on the original concept. Through these findings he communicates these spatial ideas through questioning the conventional strategies of architectural drawing by using Paradoxical drawings that challenge the very dimensions of space that we already know. Furthermore, Libeskind shows his intention to oppose these ‘Limits’ that seem superimposed on the conditioning of communication through drawing but in contrast to Tschumi, explains in that, to oppose we must at the same time destroy or deconstruct the mobility and variation that is incarnated into the very nature of formalism by rejecting the form based upon the architectures function (Libeskind, 2001). Through Libeskind’s ‘Micromegas’ (Fig. 11) it is present that the conceptual agenda looks towards the idea of open and unknowable horizons. What is being conveyed here is that the space we know has more depth to it than that of what we have already seen and facing this allows us to begin to see. The ‘Micromegas’ aim to question through critical analysis of the architectural drawings that seem to be fixated into architecture. These classical outputs that seem mandatory to the success of a construct elaborate its usefulness embedded in a theory of overall order unifying them to make a contemporary formal system of logical approach often related to philosophy. As stated by Libeskind “Formal systems present themselves as Riddles – Unknown instruments for which usage is not yet found” – (Libeskind, p.84, 2001).

Through the Transcripts of Bernard Tschumis drawings in a deep analysis we can start to understand how the conventional ways of architecture are questioned in relation to space. He starts to ask if the architecture that we design is conformed to being a physical structure. This seems to be one of the key challenges in the transcripts. As seen in (Fig. 12) it attempts to interpret exactly what an extract from MT 4, ‘The Block’ is trying to convey through Tschumi’s conceptualisation into the design of space. From analysis, it is questioning the physical structure of architecture that moulds the space where we gain these experiences. Nevertheless, what it is actually saying is that the fragments of structure, as relevant as they are part of the architecture is actually incomplete until the experience and ‘Violence’ in Space happen. To summarise this concept, it is saying that the experience that happens in architecture, finish the work of the designer and therefore space is beyond multiple dimensions as infinite experience can happen in a space, suggesting that the concept that the designer is trying to convey is constantly in flux (Tschumi, 1997).

In Contrast to the idea of Bernard Tschumi, Libeskind also challenges the physical structure of architecture. His conceptualisation of space is between the unbiased look towards physical space and absent space – Negative Space (Libeskind, 2001). His approach underlines that there should be this unbiased hierarchy between space and structure, which then can be contrasting between the positive and negative space that he implies. Libeskind does not however, talk of architectural action as ‘violence in space’ – he grows more towards the experience that is created in a piece of architecture, which is also noted in some of the writing of Bernard Tschumi. Therefore, it seems logical to say that areas of deconstructivism move towards a more human interaction and ethical presence to the underlying concept of the designers and authors.

There is evidently a balance between the two, they both seek to reveal the underlying truth of the experience that happens in an architectural space through their own transgressions. On the contrary both have contrasting approaches. Libeskind uses his drawings to provoke emotion into space and stimulates senses of a presence of absence. This is understood in his drawings as presence and absence are both contradicting, so when we look to analyse the embedded meaning behind his drawings – most commonly found in the ‘Micromegas’ we see the paradoxes and illusions that make no sense in the physical world but opens a new dimension of architecture that translates in a metaphorical term. Now we can start to question through the language of drawing what he is trying to communicate? When we look at illusion we start to question if these impossibilities are possible. Libeskind through his use of drawing does this very impressively by using these paradoxes in a more theoretical way using translation of metaphor in order to convey that ‘absence is made present’.