The Drawings of ‘Ideal Space’ to the Physicality of ‘Real Space’

Like most architects who design practical ‘Real Space’ first convey their language with pen and paper in the hope of communicating and testing a strong concept. Both Libeskind and Tschumi used the convention of drawing to test the limits and durability of them in order to explore the uncanny of architecture that is usually not legible without conveying the underlying ideas behind the space itself. Unlike most conceptual drawings the concept in both Tschumi’s and Libeskind’s work met reality through the exploration of physical form – ‘Real Space’.

Libeskind’s conceptual drawings of the ‘Micromegas’ are very different in many ways. However, as much as these drawings that Libeskind produces are primarily for conceptual purposes, they are not to be seen as architectural blueprints, but rather to communicate his ideas and translate them through metaphorical compositions that rely heavily on their symbolism in order to convey their meaning in both drawn form and physical space and structure. Initially these conceptual drawings stem from a deconstruction of the space and existing dimensions in the exploration of new metaphorical meanings. On the other hand, the physical structure of the ‘Jewish Museum, Berlin’ (Fig. 14) Libeskind uses the enriched history of the existing knowledge and symbolism to deconstruct the ‘Jewish Star of David’ which, similarly, explores the fragmented dimensions of their past to then enrich knowledge of the future represented by the striking physical architecture displayed on the site (As Seen in Fig. 15 – Deconstruction of the Star of David) (Young, 2000).

This idea of Libeskind’s ‘absence while being present’ are translated from these ‘micromegas’ and implemented in the design of his ‘Jewish Museum, Berlin’. The space of the building is what constitutes his architecture where the voids and absences are embodied by the ‘Invisible’ and ‘Empty’ spaces that are experienced around the walls (Young, 2000). In his ambitious conceptualization to balance presence with absence succeed in his writing of (Libeskind, The Space of Encounter, 2001) where he elaborates on his concept for the Jewish Museum, Berlin. He represents the future in Juxtaposition to the past alongside the beginning in relation to the end through the use of engaging with the interpreter on a visceral, emotional, and mental level (Libeskind, 2001).

With these contradicting binaries there seems to be an absence of logical configuration of how the spaces may start to work in relation to logical order. However, Libeskind does this very well as he uses the architecture as a sense of fragmentation and deconstruction in order to assemble the zig zag patten and intersecting lines (As seen in - Fig. 16). As the ‘Micromegas’ seem to produce a sense of disorientation to the viewer in the ideal reality of space, it is also implied into the theoretical approaches to movement as part of the experience, like Libeskind is trying to achieve a fixed space with a linear sequence of movement that incorporates a movement of flux with the multiple spaces that are given (Fig. 17 – Image of Libeskind’s drawings that show the movement Between the Lines).

In a contrasting observation, Bernard Tschumi’s conceptual drawings are not formal plan or legible for bringing these conceptual ideals of space into the physically of this dimension, but what they are a tool, like Libeskind; tool for a metaphorical translation of what falls between fantasy and reality - offering legibility to the philosophical meaning of the deconstructed truth behind a buildings concept (Genel, 2019). In Tschumi’s transcripts, the overall purpose he is trying to convey is the exploration of Space, Movement and Events. However, a keynote to understand is that these key implications are explored on the context of Manhattans urban Environment (Tschumi, 1996). As discussed earlier, he goes into the depths of how architecture is not just about the physical forms of buildings that most seem to recognise architecture as, but like Libeskind implies as well is that it is more to do with the space that is between the lines. When Tschumi looks closer into the space what he addresses is the events and actions that take place, expanding that they are embedded with that space, completing the architecture and the perception of the place in which it happens.

Tschumi’s exploration as much as the translations from the ‘Transcripts’ are metaphorical, they are still a vast influence towards his physical constructs of ‘Parc De La Villette’ (Fig. 18) through the exploration of Lines, Points and Surfaces (As Seen in Fig. 20) (Genel, 2019).

Firstly, they engage with his conceptual drawings through the exploration of the idea that there is this relationship between space and movement. The programmatic display of movement in Parc De La Villette is associated through one of his superimpositions of ‘Points’ (Fig. 20) that use the idea of a system of points that link to the system of objects incorporated into the park. The points propose a grid system that is separated from a network of the ‘Folies’ (Fig. 18). The bright red markers distributed along a grid of 120 Meter intervals suggest a disruption of a cube with a volume of 10 cubic Meters (Genel, 2019). These points are proposed by Tschumi that they act as ‘Points of Intensity’ that ultimately aim to permit maximum movement through the site and allow the user to explore different parts of the park through an arrangement of organisation, order and continuity.

Furthermore, Tschumi States “there is no space without event, no architecture without program” – (Tshcumi, p.139, 1996). Here he asks us a rhetorical question, that if there is this way of interpreting architecture, then can one attempt to contribute to architectural discourse? Tschumi is asking if architecture, Program, and event are all contributors to architecture itself then is there a need for the physicality of structure. This concept is demonstrated in his work of the transcripts where he demonstrates an understanding of the events that takes place in ‘The Manhattan Transcripts’. Where the architecture is defined by the events that happen to support the program and the program to support the events, ‘Parc De La Villette’ intentionally is designed by Bernard Tschumi to incorporate and address all expression and activity types. Therefore, in a clever way what he incorporates from his drawings into the reality dimension is a ‘Flexible space’ that like Derrida’s Deconstructive Theory becomes a state of flux for public space integrated with the presence of a building. To further this, the space is then deconstructed upon the superimposed layers of Lines, Points and Surfaces that explore the richness and discontinuity that exists within life, as well as being expressed into the conceptual drawings of the ‘Transcripts’ (Genel, 2019).

In relation to the drawings Tschumi incorporates and expresses the relationship between architecture and narrative by incorporating the ‘Folies’, ‘Grids’ and ‘programming’ suggesting a sense of order and narrative into a space. The way in which he uses this method in contrast to the drawings is by merging a range of recreational and cultural activities that also determine a sense of continuity within the space (As Seen in Fig. 22) (Genel, 2019). The way in which the ‘Folies’ occur in an unfinished manner is what implies to the user the feeling of continuity around a space in juxtaposition to the grid that serves a purpose of order and control or uncontrollable order in the park?

Conclusion

The understanding of Derrida’s Theories as contradicting as they may be, understands in depth the meaning behind the language we so effortlessly use. In a set way his meaning seems to be about giving our perceptions of language a constant state of flux in regard to the context that it is associated in or not in. Although the translations from Philosophical Deconstruction to Deconstructivism are conveyed through metaphorical interpretation they both still share the same qualities as to what they actually represent. They both share the curiosity to find the limits in order to achieve an antagonist role in both language and architecture and then ultimately push these limits towards a new dimension. As architects we are pioneers for creativity, exploration, and development, therefore, the exploration of the uncanny is most certainly a field that comes of great interest to the powerful minds we possess especially when they begin to question the very logic we deem as necessary to logical thinking in designing space.

The transgressions seem to explain that the translation is going against what we already know, finding its limits and questioning them to the extent of exceeding them but without destroying them, after all what is left to break once destroyed (Tschumi, 1996). As an understanding, what Tschumi’s transgressions state is that there is a ‘Nature of Space’ that is shown in his and Libeskinds conceptual drawings that contradict itself, the idea is finding new dimensions.

Based on my analysis it almost seems as if they refer to these new dimensions as ‘The Experience’. They aim to challenge the user to experience space in a different way, in using this concept the architect is offering a flux around the idea that the experience creates the context, consequently, the building is constantly in a ‘Deconstructive’ state, therefore, finished, but unfinished. This is where the transgressions contradict themselves, do both opposites need each other presence in order to reveal these concepts of emotion when designing space? The process behind waking these emotions in a space is where deconstruction takes a physical state. Both architects start to take away the structure, whether it is a building, formula, process or even a society, anything that is without structure feels loose, unstable and extends to this dimension of emotion and experience. Tschumi, tells us that society expects architects to domesticate their deepest fears to make our architecture feel safe, formal, and functional, but questions this states that by taking away structure we begin to allow users to apply themselves to a space in a different way without rules or boundaries (Tschumi, 1996).

In a comparison Libeskind does the same initial concept, awaking these feelings of danger and fragmentation throughout a space that presents itself as disorientating to the user, this way he uses the two opposite binaries to make the absence, present, and show the past in light of the future and the future in light of the past (Libeskind, 2001). Overall, his drawings try to conclude this as they set out to show what isn’t there – the new horizons and dimensions that he tries to incorporate, which is the experience created that can either past or future, absent and present but both opposites felt as a collective. By assembling the fragmented geometry in both drawings and physical constructs the feeling of uneasiness is what challenges the user to experience space in different way to complete the building.

At first, Deconstructivism almost seems to be a logical comparison to a ‘Black Hole’. However, to fully understand what it is, it seems one must first look inside total darkness to see light. But the analogy in this is that there must already be light in order to know that darkness there. It’s a different way of conceptualising our architecture and applying it to the way that we design space. It allows the users to become challenged when they enter a space, not to enter a space knowing exactly what its purpose is, but more to the point, the space that we as architects design can be interpreted and experienced in a way that allows the user and the designer to become relative to each other and have that freedom to experience space in our own way. To conclude, this essay addresses that there are many different ways that you can experience anything, the dimensions of space are endless. Are architects to govern if architecture is about physical structure and the function that takes place inside it or can we deconstruct the truth of a piece of architecture by taking away its structure to reveal its paradox; the experience of space¿