Meaning in Deconstructivism by Gigi Presentey

Lotus International 104: Revista trimestrale di Architettura, Nicolin, Pierluigi (ed.), 2001 Le Fresnoy Art Centre, Bernard Tschumi, 1997 Architecture and Disjunction, Bernard Tschumi, 1994 Groningen Museum, Coop Himmelb(l)au, 1994 The Architecture of Deconstruction, Mark Wigley, 1993 Vitra Fire Station, Zaha Hadid, 1993

on and New Modernism, Peter Noever (ed.), 1991 Nunotani Building, Peter Eisenman, 1991 Building, Coop Himme(l)blau, 1989

strasse, Hamburg, Zaha Hadid, 1989 for the Arts, Peter Eisenman, 1989

s and Andrew Benjamin, 1988

p Johnson, Mark Wigley, 1988

(1st), Daniel Libeskind, 1988

ng, Coop Himmelb(l)au, 1988

Center, Peter Eisenman, 1988

okyo, Zaha Hadid, 1987

984

MEANING IN DECONSTRUCTIVISM (1982 1995+) Gigi- Presentey for Roberto Damiani A Projective Retrospective

Architecture in Transition: Between Deconstructio Jasmac Bar

Haffens Wexner Center

What is Deconstruction? Christopher Norris

Deconstructivist Architecture, Philip

Jewish Museum (

Rooftop remodellin

Pittsburgh Technology C

Azabu To

Venice III, Morphosis, 19 Hon Kong Peak Leisure Club, Zaha Hadid, 1982 Parc de la Villette (2nd), Rem Koolhaas (OMA), 1982 Parc de la Villette (1st), Bernard Tschumi, 1982 Loyola Law School, Frank Gehry, 1981 Flame-Wing, Coop Himmelb(l)au, 1980 Gehry House, Frank Gehry, 1979 On Grammatology, Jacques Derrida, 1967

RUSSIAN AVANT-GARDE

Constructivism (1917-1936) Suprematism (1913-1920s)

POSTMODERNISM (1964-1990) MODERNISM (1910S - 1960S)

on and New Modernism, Peter Noever (ed.), 1991 Nunotani Building, Peter Eisenman, 1991 Building, Coop Himme(l)blau, 1989

strasse, Hamburg, Zaha Hadid, 1989 for the Arts, Peter Eisenman, 1989

s and Andrew Benjamin, 1988

p Johnson, Mark Wigley, 1988

(1st), Daniel Libeskind, 1988

ng, Coop Himmelb(l)au, 1988

Center, Peter Eisenman, 1988

okyo, Zaha Hadid, 1987

984

DECONSTRUCTIVISM (1982 - 1995+)

In the 1960s, Jacques Derrida identified a not-method/not-critique of the relationship between text and language and called it Deconstruction, though did not think of it as a method, nor as an -ism (Royle 2003). The not-critique is complex and difficult to pin down, but an oversimplified version would at minimum interrogate in a selfreferential way its own existence, roots, and assumptions, attempting reiteratively to circle closer and closer to the essence of the thing - which is too ungraspable to be a concept - that Deconstruction seems to point towards (Royle 2003). In one of these iterative loops, Derrida calls Deconstruction “what happens,” as if an inevitable earthquake occurs when the state of existence displays a clue or crack in the phenomenon of a sentence of language. There is a close relationship between Semiology and Deconstruction, in that Derrida references the ‘chain of substitutions’ inherent in language’s concepts – how each of them can only be described relatively to other concepts, infinitely. Derrida’s Deconstruction branches into Deconstructvism in Architecture, wherein he had dialogues with both Bernard Tschumi and Peter Eisenman, the two Architects “in” the movement who authored texts on their own work and thinking.

Deconstructivism was born in the late 1970s and early 1980s, reacting against Classicism, Late Modernism’s descent into the formulaic, and against Postmodernism for being shallow and regressive. Deconstructivists reacted against the Classical underpinnings of Modernism and rejected the pure form and order that this implied, as well as the oversimplistic conceptualization of ‘function,’ in the Modernist line “form follows function.” According to Colin Davies (2017), they sought to replace function with narrative. According to Davies (2017), the Deconstructivists intentionally manifested in their designs a destructive force. The disruptive force/parasite/alien seems to manifest with some overlapping of layers or collision of elements. A little hedonistic, Deconstructivists understood and encouraged the ‘misuse’ of space. It seems as if the Deconstructivists were giving occupants an opportunity to creatively use the spaces that resulted from unexpected combinations or intersections.

Mark Wigley (1988) describes Deconstructivist Architecture as that which can disturb our thinking about form. Primary pure forms are made to clash or conflict to produce dissonance rather than harmony. He maintains that the act Deconstructivism also built upon the is not demolition. Pure form has always work of the Russian Avant-Garde of been contaminated. The Deconstructivist the 1910s-1930s, especially Russian dissects buildings of the tradition of pure Constructivism and Suprematism, both form, finding the inevitable repressed formally and conceptually, though the inherent flaws, exposing them as a kind of continuum was not necessarily conscious torturous/coaxing/interrogatory therapy, (Johnson and Wigley 1988). The Russian Avant-Garde rejected traditional high arts and ending up with a result that is stronger for having undergone torture. Wigley likens as being an escape from social reality the exposed flaw as a ‘parasite’ or ‘alien’ in the context of industrialization but that incorporates and fuses itself with the embraced Architecture for its inherent building from the inside, causing ambiguity functionality and its necessity (Johnson between interior/exterior and host/parasite. and Wigley 1988). Fernandez-Galiano Rather than becoming acontextual, the criticizes the movement as lacking the forms twist and distort themselves within theoretical underpinnings of its Russian the context. Walls are split/folded; the Avant-Garde predecessors, not “easily” finding enclosure breaks down; traditional notions “visionary mood” or “Utopian impetus” in of structure and ground plane are warped. Deconstructivism (Fernandez-Galiano 2001). In this description, Wigley (1988) maintains

INTRODUCTION 2

that the projects are rigorously functional. Function follows deformation. Form no longer follows function.

tradition or related to Derridean thought.

Thus, appropriate to Derrida’s original Deconstruction, the very so-called If we consider Davies’ definition, Wigley’s movement of Deconstructivism contains descriptions seems as if he himself was within it the inherent contradiction or acting as a Deconstructivist, this narrative paradox of both existence and nonversion of the architecture replacing the existence. Balancing, for the purposes of this Modernist definition of function. These self- text, on the fulcrum of this paradox, let us referential definitions of Deconstructivism jump back into the Matrix for the moment are very Derridean. and accept that Deconstructivism is indeed a movement. Fernandez-Galiano pairs Deconstructivist buildings with disasters such as building All three projects which will be addressed collapse and train derailment, in images forthwith - Tschumi’s Le Fresnoy, accompanying his text, implying that Eisenman’s Wexner Center, and Coop these buildings are akin to those disasters. Himmelb(l)au’s Rooftop Remodeling – have According to him, “though [Deconstructivist plenty of room in their forms for creating Architects] pretend to say ‘this is how or discovering meaning or essence. The things are nowadays, complex and crooked,’ architecture displays a Deconstruction of the real message is ‘if we can make these traditional meaning in form and gives it impossible forms stand, so will we manage new meaning. People who experience these to keep a fragile world stable’” (Fernandez- projects can either discover traces of the Galiano 2001). architect’s intentions, thoughts, and feelings about the project, or to discover untold Deconstructivism in Architecture was not a stories unfolding in the project, or to take consensus, rules, or group-based movement. the project itself as a story without needing One attempt to ratify the movement was to translate it from architectural language the often-cited 1988 MoMA exhibition to word-based language. organized by Philip Johnson and Mark Wigley, which aggregated the works of Peter Eisenman, Frank Gehry, Zaha Hadid, Rem Koolhaas, Daniel Libeskind, Bernard Tschumi, and Coop Himmelb(l)au (Johnson and Wigley 1988). Most if not all the Architects classified as Deconstructivists deny the label, have a queasy at best relationship with it, or have their own labels whose concepts overlap with the concept of Deconstructivism. They often had no theoretical connection with the movement as defined by Architecture critics. Gehry, for example, found the label amusing and expedient (Haddad 2014). When describing his Santa Monica House, a key example in the MoMA exhibition, he says “We were told there were ghosts in the house … I decided they were ghosts of Cubism. The windows… I wanted to make them look like they were crawling out of this thing.” While Wigley’s description of a Deconstructivist ‘parasite’ (described in the following paragraphs) can be transposed onto Gehry’s description, the latter seems more author-generative and formalist than building on the Russian Avant-Garde 3

Coop Himmelb(l)au has always been a visceral, tactile, and feeling-based design group. “We try to define the feeling, the emotion that the space is later to radiate. And then suddenly we have a drawing…” (Prix 1991). I believe this process is similar to what Eisenman calls “presence,” “aura,” and “affect.”1 Coop Himmelb(l)au emphasizes the feeling/spirit invested into the initial design sketch. They often draw the first sketch of a project with their eyes closed so as not to be distracted from the pure feeling of the “psychological ground-plan.” At one point in their design evolution, they ceased speaking to each other, communicating only with minimal gestures (Prix 1991).

energy. The support-pierced wall becomes an invitation to the sun.

The meaning of context, both spatial and temporal, is addressed. Viollet-le-Duc’s preservation “means to re-establish [a building] to a finished state, which may in fact never have actually existed at any given time” (Viollet-le-Duc 1875). The creative license implied by Viollet-le-Duc is more akin than a Ruskin-esque approach to how Co-op Himmelb(l)au has approached this project. The arc of energy is what ‘completes’ the building at the point in time of the Rooftop Remodeling. An Architect further down the road could once again Deconstruct the building to ‘complete’ it once again, a process In the Rooftop Remodeling, Coop Himmelb(l) which could in theory happen ad infinitum. In au expands an existing roof space to create a the framework of Viollet-le-Duc’s approach to conference room and office space for a law preservation, the intervening incompleteness firm. The conventional language of the roof is implied by the resulting completeness, transformed. The roof is liberated to be more could be seen as part of the process of than just a roof. A “visualized line of energy” Deconstruction on the building, giving spatial comes from the street and spans the project, and temporal context new meaning. “breaking the existing roof and thereby Coop Himmelb(l)au’s Rooftop Remodeling opening it” (Werner 2000), manifesting as a has been described as a collision, a “grafting steel arc serving as both the structural and of a prosthetic,” a “friction,” a “plasticized essential backbone of the project. Depending wound dressing,” on how metaphysically(Werner 2000) and minded one is, one could also be described could say that the line as an “emergence.” of energy is either These adjectives describe envisioned or discovered by the designer. an inferred attitude to how the addition In one spot, a support element breaks addresses the existing building. This apparent through the wall. Rather than concealing this, approach to the meaning of context introduces Coop Himmelb(l)au use the opportunity to something formally new rather than blending emphasize the break as a slit, allowing the sun in seamlessly or formally mimicking the to shoot an “arrow” of light on the opposite context to fit in. Conceptually, the Architects wall. (Prix 1991) are reacting to something felt in the context and expressing that in the addition. The The structure - like a hybrid between a bridge meaning of context appears to transcend the and an airplane - doesn’t disappear, but rather visual-physical and historical-temporal, and is on display. The traditional meaning of enters the feeling, which some would call the structure is removed and is replaced with new metaphysical. meaning. The arc’s new meaning is a bolt of

Q: WHAT IS ARCHITECTURE? WOLF PRIX: YES.

ROOFTOP REMODELING, VIENNA, AUSTRIA COOP HIMME(L)BLAU, 1983 - 1988 4

Eisenman describes “presentness” or ”aura” in Architecture in a letter to Jacques Derrida in Written into the Void: Selected Writings 1990 - 2004 (Eisenman 2007) 1

as “neither absence nor presence, form nor function, neither the particular use of a sign nor the crude existence of reality, but rather an excessive condition between sign and the Heideggerian notion of being: the formation and ordering of the discursive event that is architecture. As long as there is a strong bond between form and function, sign and being, the excess that contains the possibility of presentness will be repressed ... This third, nondialiectical condition of space exists only in an excess that is more, or less, than the traditional, hierarchical, Vitruvian preconditions of form: structure, function, and beauty.” Eisenman wants to

“identify a condition in architecture that resists interpretation,” and wants to manifest “this aura that is the aura of the third - this excess that is presentness.” His architecture asks, “Can there be an other in the condition of aura in architecture, an aura that both is secret and contains its own secret, the mark of its absent openness?” In “The Affects of Singularity,” Eisenman describes the difference between affect and effect in a story about speaking in foreignlanguage places, where the audience listens to a translated version (effect) of his live talk (affect): “the earphones diminish the affect of my live voice; its emotion, animation, and spirit.” He says, “I want [the audience] to feel my presence, my affect.” “Presentness,” “aura,” and “affect” all overlap with Coop Himmelb(l)au’s description of the “feeling,” and “emotion,” which they try to manifest in their work, though they use different words to describe it. Derrida calls it “essence,” and I think it overlaps partially with “meaning” in Architecture.

The Wexner Center addresses the existing and historical context in a different way than Coop Himmelb(l)au’s Rooftop Modeling. Two street grids angled at 12° to each other – of downtown Columbus and the university district – are brought into superimposition/ collision. Rather than trying to hide or mask the collision between the two existing grids, Eisenman emphasizes the intersection, weaving it into something more provoking. An archway – a traditionally structural element – comes to a stop partway through its arc, and a space frame vector element, which beyond holding itself up, does nothing traditionally structural for most of its length. Glass rectilinear forms seem to push the exterior brick elements apart. Traditionally, brick signified strength, and glass would be supported by strong elements. Here, the condition is reversed. The glass appears to be strong enough to push the brick elements (rendered flimsy) apart.

Eisenman’s to its logical extreme, it would be no truer that the armory tower is split in half, than that it is indeed whole, depending on where (or when) the viewer is standing. This ambiguity in Architecture is similar to the activity of particles in Quantum Theory. When unobserved, particles are waves, but when observed, collapse or “choose” a set of conditions of being. In Derridean fashion, the “meaning of structure” has been deconstructed in a conscious way. Eisenman’s architecture states that meaning of structure no longer applies given the building technology and conceptual knowledge of global consciousness’ leading edge. So he creates a new self-referential meaning, that also acknowledges history and context.

Lissitzky, a pioneer along with Malevich in synthesizing Suprematism wrote, “traditionally, the viewer has been lulled into passivity by the paintings on walls … Fernandez-Galiano, criticizing our construction/design shall make the man Deconstructivism as lacking the theoretical active.” Similarly, Eisenman wants to engage underpinnings of the Russian Avant-Garde, the experiencer to be more aware of their subscribes to the Vitruvian (80BC~15BC) environment (Belogolovsky 2016, Davidson ideals of firmitas (solidity), utilitas (function), 2006), by for example, placing a column and venustas (delight) (Fernandez-Galiano in the middle of a staircase and cutting a 2001), while Alberti counters that Vitruvius’ column before it hits the ground. Eisenman “firmitas” meant that not only should wants you to stop and wonder why the space Architecture stand up, but it should also frame leading to the entrance does not appear look like it stands up. Eisenman agrees with to support any roof or walls for most of its Alberti, where Architecture is freed from length. having to signify its function in the Vitruvian sense, it can take on deeper layers of meaning. Eisenman intentionally casts traditional Eisenman sees through the “illusion of linking elements as signifiying nontraditional meanings. One potential result of this crossrationality with truth and transparency” contamination of meaning is a momentary (Müller 1991). mental silence, bringing the observer into A reconstructed historical armory tower present awareness, and subsequently appears fragmented from one angle, and becoming more aware of the signifiers of whole from another angle. Eisenman (2012) Architecture, eventually resulting in a more – like Tschumi – takes the position that conscious understanding and appreciation. “there is no preferred place for the viewer to understand.” Taking this statement of

WEXNER CENTRE, COLUMBUS, OHIO PETER EISENMAN, 1983-1989 8

Tschumi has described Le Fresnoy as “the chance encounter of a sewing machine and an umbrella on a dissecting table.” A literal analysis might assign the sewing machine as the circulation elements – the needle piercing through the fabric, or the thread cutter snipping the architectural narrative trajectory in a dead end. The umbrella would be the new roof, which has also been pierced by the sewing machine strategically to bring in light and views to the sky. The dissecting table would be the ground plane containing the preexisting buildings, dissected to varying degrees, embalmed in preserving fluid, pierced by the circulation elements, and seen from angles and proximities which no one expected when they were initially conceived. ‘Chance’ hints at the involvement of the inhabitants as co-creators of the space.

of this function but gains the new function of supporting the circulation elements, and conceptually and visually unifying the buildings below.

“CHANCE ENCOUNTER OF A SEWING MACHINE AND AN UMBRELLA ON A DISSECTING TABLE.” - BERNARD TSCHUMI

Rather than deleting the old buildings, Tschumi adds a roof over the whole complex, unifying the pieces into a new whole. He turns the traditional Architectural meaning of “roof” on its head by using the old roof plane as a new landscape. Circulation elements pierce the structure, allowing people to circulate amongst this new landscape. Tschumi’s dislike of separating the concepts of ‘form’ and ‘concept’ is reflected in this project, where the ‘concept-form’ is an abstracted orchestration that includes materials, movement, and programs. The meaning of “roof” is reinvented as a new concept-form. The roof partially sheds its traditional meaning as shelter. A roof would previously have been part of a sealed system, connected to walls, and sheltering from the rain and snow. In Le Fresnoy, the roof is both disconnected from the shelter of walls, but it is also full of holes. Rather than being only a sheltering element, it retains some

Architecture has traditionally signified a place of settlement, but in Le Fresnoy it is unsettled. The movie strip representation illustrates this destabilized condition. The Architecture becomes a unique series of events generated by the user’s choice of trajectory rather than a coherent predefined hierarchical space. The users are kept in mind as the ultimate designers of the space. Previously, the hierarchy of the architecture would dictate the narrative of the space. Now, the hierarchy is translated to the functional levels of (new) roof, circulation and old buildings (landscape), and the narrative is determined by the users. Tschumi describes his work as attempting to unsettle and disturb. To disturb seems to be a key move for what is classified as Deconstructivist Architecture, a response to what came to be judged as Modern Architecture’s fallacious attributions of meaning and Postmodern Architecture’s falling back into same. To disturb is also an embrace of the crisis in theoretical thought. Meaning in architecture is disturbed. The word ‘disturb’ has a negative connotation, but for those already disturbed, given the historical context, the emotional effect of the disruption becomes perhaps joy, freeing, neutralization, addition, or empathy. For those who put understanding into words, the effect of the disruption is a puzzle to be solved. However, in the spirit of Deconstructivism, should this dialectic of the emotional vs. the intellectual not also be deconstructed?

LE FRESNOY, TOURCOING, FRANCE BERNARD TSCHUMI, 1991 - 1997 12

Are any of the Architects commonly referred to as Deconstructivists truly Deconstructivist in a Derridean sense? In the sense that Derrida’s Deconstructivism unmasks assumptions inherent in the structure of language and the infinite layers of meaning and signifiers that can never get to the “real” unfiltered reality, I would say that Eisenman’s, Tschumi’s, and Coop Himmelb(l)au’s Architectures Deconstruct the language of Architecture. Each of the projects discussed in this text accomplishes to varying degrees in Architecture what Malevich wanted to do with the pure square in 1927– to free the art world from the real world (Malevich 2003). Yet the “real world” has not freed itself from these works. Like people judge each other and associate based on appearance and status, they judge the appearance of not only Deconstructivist Architecture but also other movements in architecture, without understanding the relevant cultural context, or even their own place in the cultural context. They are often not even aware that they have a place in the cultural context themselves.

shelter from the elements and the wild animals (of the public of the post-truth era), nevertheless many Architects both selfconsciously and unselfconsciously manifest nuggets of Deconstructivist thinking and attitudes in their buildings. Some of the more self-aware and essential examples are described in this text. There are but pockets of consensus when it comes to defining Deconstructivism, indicating that Deconstructivism does its job very well; if Deconstructivism particularly could be neatly wrapped into a package that everyone could agree on what it “is,” its philosophy would have failed. The fragmented nature of the cloud of definitions associated with Deconstructivist projects in Architecture is expected given the so-called movement’s roots in a hybrid of Russian Constructivism, Suprematism, and Derridean thought.

“TRADITIONALLY, THE VIEWER HAS BEEN LULLED INTO PASSIVITY BY THE PAINTINGS ON WALLS … OUR CONSTRUCTION/DESIGN SHALL MAKE THE MAN ACTIVE.” - ED LISSITZKY

“Surgery,” and “emergence,” words often used in discourse on Deconstructivism in Architecture, could map onto Derridean thought. Surgery could describe the process of deconstructing language, and emergence could describe the aftermath of the deconstruction, whether that be chaos and a pile of rubble, implied by FernándezGaliano (Fernandez-Galiano 2001) - “word salad” in the post-truth era - or the drops of resin oozing out of a spruce tree pecked by animals and insects, or the new shoots that come out of a pruned branch - a new idea or concept born when an old one is dissected. It may be impossible to have an ideal Deconstructivist building, given the desire to not kill the occupants, and to give them

The aim for active viewing or experiencing in Deconstructivism can be traced to Constructivism. Lissitzky, a pioneer along with Malevich in synthesizing Suprematism wrote, “traditionally, the viewer has been lulled into passivity by the paintings on walls … our construction/design shall make the man active.” The projects described in this text use traditional elements signifiying nontraditional meanings, potentially inviting a momentary mental silence in the observer, who subsequently might become more aware of the signifiers of Architecture, eventually resulting in a more conscious understanding and appreciation.

DECONSTRUCTING CONCLUSION MEANING 16

Belogolovsky, Vladimir. 2016. Conversations with Jacques Derrida and Peter Eisenman. Monacelli Peter Eisenman. Berlin: DOM Publishers. Press. Costanzo, Michele. 2009. “Twenty Years After (Deconstructivism): An Interview with Bernard Tschumi.” Edited by Paul David Blackmore. Architectural Design 79 (1): 24-29. Davidson, C., ed. 2006. Tracing Eisenman. New York: Rizzoli. Davies, Colin. 2017. A new history of modern

architecture : art nouveau, the beaux-arts, expressionism, modernism, constructivism, art deco, classicism, brutalism, postmodernism, neorationalism, high tech, deconstructivism, digital futures. London: Laurence King Publishing.

Malevich, K. 2003. The Non-Objective World. Mineola: Dover Publications. Meredith, Michael. 2013. “After After Geometry.” Architectural Design 83 (2): 96103. Müller, A.M. 1991. “The Dialectic of Modernism.” In Architecture in Transition:

Between Deconstruction and New Modernism, ed. P. Noever, 9-14. Munich: Prestel-Verlag. Norris, Christopher, and Andrew Benjamin. 1988. What is deconstruction? London: Academy Editions.

Derrida, Jacques. 1985. “Point de Folie Maintenant L’architecture: Bernard Tschumi: La Patin, Thomas. 1993. “From Deep Structure to Case Vide - La Villette, 1985.” AA Files 12 (2): an Architecture in Suspense: Peter Eisenman, Structuralism, and Deconstruction.” Journal of 65-75. Architectural Education 47 (2): 88-100. Eisenman, P. 2007. Written into the Void. New Prix, Wolf D. 1991. “On the Edge.” Haven and London: Yale University Press. In Architecture in Transition: Between Eisenman, Peter, interview by Peter Engelmann. Deconstruction and New Modernism, ed. P. 2012. Architecture and Deconstruction: Peter Noever, 17-31. Munich: Prestel.

Eisenman in conversation with Peter Engelmann

Deutsches Haus, New York University, (February Royle, N. 2003. Jacques Derrida. London; New York: Routledge. 28). Spencer, Douglas. 2016. The architecture of Fernandez-Galiano, Luis. 2001. “Earthquake and Therapy.” Lotus International (104): 45-47. neoliberalism : how contemporary architecture Foster, Hal. 1987. “Neo-futurism: Architecture and Technology.” AA Files (14): 25-27. Gray, C. 1962. The Great Experiment: Russian Art, 1863-1922. Michigan: Abrams. Haddad, Elie G. 2014. “Deconstruction: The Project of Radical Self-Criticism.” In A Critical

became an instrument of control and compliance. Bloomsbury Academic.

Tschumi, Bernard. 1994. Architecture and Disjunction. Cambridge: MIT Press. —. 1981. The Manhattan Transcripts. Virginia: Academy Editions.

Tshcumi, Bernard. 2000. “Six Concepts.” In History of Contemporary Architecture: 1960 2010, by Elie G., Rifkind, David Haddad, 69-85. Architecturally Speaking : Practices of Art, Architecture and the Everyday, ed. Alan Read, Burlington: Ashgate.

156-176. Taylor and Francis. Institute of Contemporary Art. 2006. Fertilizers: Olin/Eisenman. Edited by J. Porter. Philadelphia: Viollet-le-Duc, E. 1875. On Restoration. London: Sampson Low, Marston, Low, and Sparle. Institute of Contemporary Art. Werner, F. 2000. Covering + Exposing: The Jencks, Charles. 2001. “Non-Linear Architecture.” Lotus International (104): 81-93. Architecture of Coop Himmelb(l)au. Basel, Berlin, Boston : Birkhauser. Johnson, Philip, and Mark Wigley. 1988. Yale University School of Architecture. 2004. Deconstructivist Architecture. New York: Eisenman/Krier: Two Ideologies. A Conference Museum of Modern Art. at the Yale School of Architecture. New York: Kipnis, J., Leeser, T., ed. 1997. Chora L Works: Monacelli Press.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

M.ARCH 3 • UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO • 2018