Deconstruction: A True Form of Architecture? , Kevin Li

DECONSTRUCTION: A TRUE FORM OF ARCHITECTURE?

Kevin Li W11021373 Contemporary Influences on Interior Architecture BE1152

CONTENTS

Introduction 1.0

5

Philosophy of Deconstruction 2.0

6

Deconstruction within Architecture 3.0

8

Derrida’s View on Deconstructivist Architecture 4.0

12

Interpretation of deconstruction by Architects 5.0

14

Conclusion 6.0

15

Bibliography 7.0

16

Fig.1 Bernard Tschumi’s Parc de La Villette in Paris (1985)

Fig.2 Bernard Tschumi’s Parc de La Villette in Paris (1985)

INTRODUCTION 1.0

De·con·struc·tion Noun:

A philosophical movement and theory of literary criticism that questions traditional assumptions about certainty, identity, and truth; asserts that words can only refer to other words; and attempts to demonstrate how statements about any text subvert their own meanings: “In deconstruction, the critic claims there is no meaning to be found in the actual text, but only in the various, often mutually irreconcilable, ‘virtual texts’ constructed by readers in their search for meaning” (Rebecca Goldstein). Definition can be found online on (Deconstruction, 2009) In the year 1988, Deconstruction was heavily endorsed within architecture and a new “style” was emerging. The topic of deconstruction is a controversial one and even French philosopher Jacques Derrida, founding father of Deconstruction, was shocked by the strong interest within the architecture field, where Deconstruction was previously only applied with literary criticism and philosophy.

So how does this term “deconstruction” relate to architecture? What is the philosophy of Deconstruction? How have architects developed a deconstructionist/ deconstructivist style and is this style a true form of architecture?

Derrida suggested that architectural thought of deconstruction is not possible. Derrida analysed Bernard Tschumi’s Parc de La Villette in Paris (1985)(fig. 1 and 2), and proposed that Deconstruction cannot be considered an architectural metaphor, due to deconstruction not being a simple case of dismantlement but an affirmative, positive approach, despite deconstruction’s first impressions given.

How have architects such as Bernard Tschumi, Coop Himmelblau, Zaha Hadid, Peter Eisenman, Frank Gehry, incorporated this ideology of deconstruction within their work, given Derrida’s suggestion that deconstruction cannot be considered an architectural metaphor?

To understand this ambiguous topic of deconstruction within architecture, one has to explore the philosophy of deconstruction, Derrida’s theories, the thought process and the interpretation of deconstruction by different architects, to determine whether deconstruction is a true form of architecture.

5

PHILOSPHY OF DECONSTRUCTION 2.0

Derrida (fig.3) was known as a post-structuralist; he further developed and researched into semiotic and structuralist practises originally founded by Ferdinand de Saussure although he disagreed with certain traits and attributes of it. Deconstruction considered itself as a procedure or an activity in which it reminded the user of the boundaries within a language and thought. Derrida main objection to the Saussure’s signifier/signified model of language was that the latter of the two, was the more important element.

Within his philosophy of deconstruction, a key point was the way that Saussure would regard writing as inferior or secondary towards speech. Saussure believed that the authenticity held within the figure of speech due to communication through dialogue, allowed the communicator to deliver ideas and meanings instantly, where as compared to the “lesser” writing, they are more distant or inattentive from the communicator allowing the chance of misinterpretation of their meanings. However, Derrida suggested that words communicated verbally only acts as linguistic signs, and only to the degree of repetition in other settings, in the absence of the communicator who originally spoke of these words. Dialogue is only considered as language due to the traits customarily allocated with writing. This is proven when descriptions of speech in western philosophy also requiring the need of exemplars and metaphors related to that specific chosen topic. Effectively, texts explain a verbal conversation as a form of writing, even when they are considered subordinate to speech. However deconstructive analysis is not to show which one is the superior element of the two, but to convey that neither is considered the fundamental subject.

Derrida also revealed his opinion on speech and writing as a demonstration of the “logocentrism” of Western culture. Logocentrism is defined as “a belief that at the roots of all existence there are abstract “truths” organised in absolute and inevitable “categories”. These exist only in the mind and word of God but all real things are formed from them. We can penetrate to them only by the use of language”, and the overall theory is that before linguistic signs a “realm of truth” existed. Through logocentrism, it promotes linguistic signs to be interpreted, as something that is different from it perceives to be. The concept derived from logocentrism, explores the truth and reality as existing outside language, which originated from bigotry in western philosophy, described as “metaphysics of presence” by Derrida.

Metaphysics is known as the “age-old search by philosophers for the truth, divided into categories of three, Ontology, Cosmology, Theology.” The “metaphysics of presence” became this inclination of creating philosophical concepts to do with reality, truth and ideas focusing on the presence, identity but meanwhile ignoring the fundamental roles of absence and difference.

An example of deconstruction has been explored above, but deconstruction does not only apply with speech and writing. In opposition to Structuralism, Deconstruction in philosophy is the task to discover and evaluate the paradoxes and the hierarchies sustained by the western philosophy of metaphysics.

Deconstruction challenges and questions a duo of terms where which duo is alleged to be the primary, or the secondary. However, it is not merely the reversal of the hierarchy order within the pair. Pairs that are analysed include speech and writing (explored above), inside and outside, literal and metaphorical, just to mention a few. To “deconstruct” an element, is to discover whether this hierarchical ordering within texts requires the need of metaphorical or literal uses of language. Text is proven not to be something that is produced self sufficiently and is a product or “construction”, through this study.

6

Kevin Li

Fig.3 Jacques Derrida

“Something has been constructed, a philosophical system, a tradition, a culture, and along comes a de-constructor (who) destroys it stone by stone, analyses the structure and dissolves it… one looks at a system… and examines how it was built, which keystone, which angle... supports the building; one shifts them and thereby frees oneself from the authority of the system” Derrida (1986) (Decon: a student guide, 1991, p.36) Deconstruction, as many interpreted it as, is no means a procedure, which involves contrary construction. Although deconstruction, within the context of philosophy, demolishes the concept, the connection between architecture is evidently only through metaphorical thoughts. From the observation of how Derrida applies the term deconstruction within his work, it can be considered not to be a style and has little relation to the way architecture passes “deconstruction” as. However certain abstract elements have apparent applications within the architectural field and offer an effective and significant conceptual tool.

7

DECONSTRUCTION WITHIN ARCHITECTURE 3.0

Deconstruction is “not only the analysis of concepts in their most rigorous and internalised manner, but also their analysis from without, to question what these concepts and their history hide, as repression or dissimulation.” Bernard Tschumi.

So does deconstructionist or deconstructivist architecture exist? Contemporary sculpture, painting and plans that are founded from deconstruction are clearly visible, but Derrida concluded that deconstructive architectural thought is not possible. When interviewed about Tschumi’s Parc de La Villette in Paris Derrida revealed that he believed Deconstruction couldn’t be considered as an architectural metaphor, due to deconstruction not being a simple case of dismantlement but an affirmative, positive approach, despite deconstruction’s first impressions given.

Architects when designing, tend to think of pure forms, producing pieces that often reject the idea of disruption, disorder and unpredictability. These buildings are designed and constructed to geometric forms and basic shapes, such as cubes, cones, spheres, cylinders etc., and then these shapes are merged together, following a set of rules without disrupting or conflicting one form from another. The encounter of when one form meets another is resolved so that no deformation occurs against this “pure form”; the form gives off the ambience of harmony and it being unified as a whole. This geometric form then becomes the structure of the building and gives this sense of wholeness as this form ensures that the structure is functioning effectively.

After producing this structure created from these geometric forms, an architect would develop these forms into a final design but still preserving its ideology of purity. Any sort of divergence or disorder from the structure created, acts as a threat to the harmony, purity and stability of it, and as a consequence is disregarded as mere ornament. Architecture is a method that produces elements that are seen as pure form and it shields it from disruption and contamination.

Deconstruction or Deconstructivism is the notion of pure form being dismantled, disrupted and disturbed. This ideology of pure form gets contaminated. Deconstruction within architecture is the ability to perceive and deliberate disturbed imagery of the idea of form. It is not necessary the derivation from the philosophy known as deconstruction or are they an application of deconstructive theory.

However, the relationship between architecture and philosophy is exceptionally strong and they relate to each other in fundamental ways. Architecture often delivers philosophical and metaphor thoughts.

The idea of deconstruction itself is very similar to an architectural metaphor. Through observing the structure of philosophical system, opinions that are well supported, and exaggeration used in an argument, one can perceive Architecture, as itself is its own type of philosophy. Architecture looks at the ideas and researches the relationship between objects, which indicates the similarity with the philosophical system.

Users of deconstruction are allowed to evade power, social or political life as it disregarded these notions. It did not need to consider the race, gender or identity therefore removing the need to apply further action. There was no real attachment or consequences through the usage of deconstruction through either, literacy or architecture design, through disregarding the notions above, increasing the appeal to use deconstruction.

8

Kevin Li

Although there is an association with the philosophy of Deconstruction behind it, deconstruction in architecture is a development from architectural tradition, and occurs to convey deconstructive features.

Deconstruction was established after postmodernism and it opposed to postmodernism and modernism.

Deconstructive architecture is homage to Russian constructivism resulting in the tittle “deconstructivism”. Mark Wigley saw deconstructivism as just a revival of constructivism. Tactics and approaches to deconstructivism are obtained from Russian constructivism. Russian constructivism established a key turning point. It took architectural tradition and manipulated it so drastically that it opened up a crack where the prospect of disturbance and disruption within architectural became noticeable(fig.4). Russian avant-garde started bending architectural tradition by breaking the traditional rules of composition, where balanced hierarchy and balanced forms would create a pure, stable, and unified whole. As an alternative, it began to take pure forms and use them to create distorted, impure forms, and compositions.

Fig.4 Vladimir Tatlin, Tatlin’s Tower (1920)

Wigley felt that the constructivists interrogated modern movement forms , and deconstructivism took upon similar methods. Through using the same process, naturally, forms were created very similar to constructivism. “In dismantling the on going tradition… they find themselves inevitably rehearsing the strategies rehearsed by the (Russian) Avant-grade. They irritate modernism from within, distorting it with its own genealogy” (Decon: omnibus volume, 1989, p.133). The links between deconstructivism and constructivism is not noticeable when observing the complete building, but is only evidential when looking at the design’s development work, such as the drawings and sketches. The sketches would begin to show how it takes pure balanced forms and develop these forms into skewed, impure, conflicted compositions, hence proving dangerous to architectural tradition.

9

Deconstruction within Architecture

Fig.5 Coop Himmelblau, The Open House, Model (1983) However, Constructivism only started questioning the thinking of the nature of architectural object, but it never took and developed the possibility any further. As the constructivist became more engaged with architecture, they began to detach the radical possibility away and resolved the conflict between forms. Russian constructivism left the small cracks behind and over time deconstructivism reopened these cracks.

Often deconstruction and deconstructivism is seen as or misinterpreted as the removal of constructions. Due to this misinterpretation, architecture that appears to take structure apart; even the simple concept of destroying an object or taking an object and disassembling it into collage of traces, has often been appraised to be deconstructive. Projects using this technique have produced impressive projects, but can only be seen as simulations of deconstructive as they do not exploit the exclusive condition of the architectural objects. Deconstruction is not considered to be demolition or dissimulation; it identifies aspects of structural issues within a seemingly stable structure, and these faults identified aren’t the root of the cause of the structure’s collapse. Deconstruction in architecture obtains it’s theory through challenging the values of unity, stability, and harmony; the flaws being essential to the structure, it therefore proposing a different view of the structure .To remove the flaws in the structure it cannot be done without abolishing it, therefore they are structural.

Deconstruction within architecture is deconstructed internally, similarly to how Derrida deconstructed language from within. An architect that is considered deconstructive does not therefore dismantle buildings apart, but instead the one who pinpoints the focal quandaries within the constructions. The deconstructive architect would ignore the pure forms associated with traditional architecture and the modern movement. As an alternative, they explore the indication of the supressed impurity within the building. The impurity within is then brought to attention through examination of every little aspect and details of it; the impurity is inspected and studied to its very last element. However the interrogation is not external of the form, as it is not slicing, piercing, fracturing the form. To disrupt a form externally in this method is not the reason to endanger the form, but only to decorate it or destruct it.

Damages created externally produces only an image or a representation of danger but is not a genuine threat unlike deconstruction.

10

Kevin Li

Deconstruction is created from within the form themselves through inspecting the very own structure that produced the form(fig.5). This type of architecture produces forms that are “disturbed from within, the disturbances incorporated into the internal structure, the actual construction”. Mark Wigley described the procedure as, “it is as if some sort of parasite has infected the form and distorted it from inside” (Decon: omnibus volume, 1989, p.133). This method used is visibly different from just bringing the impure characteristics within a form to the surface but instead relishing the contamination of an inherited virus. Deconstruction represents disorder, disarticulation and deflection instead of demolition, decay, or disintegration that is so frequently associated with this architecture. Instead of destroying the structure, it celebrates the structure by highlighting it. Work produced through usage of deconstruction is portrayed as disturbing or unsettling. Even through the procedure the form still manages to endure the infection from the “virus” and even appears to have increased in strength. However with this procedure what becomes unclear is whether the distortion or the form originated first.

Deconstructivist architecture also removes the need to relate its production to context, unlike other architectural projects, where the context is of heavy concern. This is done by, seeking the unfamiliarity within the familiar. It therefore allows it to displace the context instead of complying with the context.

These deconstructive projects nevertheless do not disregard the context, but instead makes certain elements of the context part of the intervention, and they are made unrecognisable. The projects would display components of the context in which it interrupts the rest of it. This brings to the attention of the previously unnoticed disruptive features and in doing so, makes them thematic.

Deconstructivist architecture is not seen as a new avant-garde, though it does intimidates the qualities of architectural objects and form. It is not a new language within architecture. It discovers concealed and unseen elements within the traditional. It targets the feeble elements within the traditional and disturbs it instead of removing or destroying it. It attacks these feeble elements right in the centre.

By occupying the centre of the traditional, it conveys that the traditional and that the pure forms has always been infected by a virus. Also through inhabiting the traditionally, Architects will discover certain pieces and features of the traditional that where once undiscovered before.

Deconstruction or Deconstructivism cannot be considered a movement though. It is rather a point where the ideas of different architects moving in different direction cross. These different architects has obviously provided ideas and influenced each other, but they cannot be perceived as a team. They will eventually develop their theory of deconstruction and interpret it completely different to one and each other. What they do share though is, they all design and construct a distorted looking building through exploiting the undiscovered possibility within modernism. Different architects will reveal and expose inhibition to produce forms in completely different ways. By doing this, they create architecture, that once used to be familiar into an unfamiliar object, and a form, through distorting itself, exposes a new identity.

11

DERRIDA’S VIEW ON DECONSTRUCIVIST ARCHITECTURE 4.0

To understand the topic of deconstruction within architecture, studying and analysing the “source” of deconstruction, which is Derrida, will further the appreciation and understanding of deconstruction in architecture.

During an interview with Christopher Norris in 1988, Derrida was questioned about his philosophy of deconstruction and the relation it has with art and architecture. Norris asked Derrida “can there be such a thing as Deconstructivist art or indeed Deconstructivist architecture?” and whether the terms used can be “refer to a given style, project or body of work?”

“When I first met, I won’t say “deconstructive architecture”, but the deconstructive discourse on architecture, and I was rather puzzled and suspicious. And then – as I have explained somewhere- then I realised that on the contrary, the most efficient way of putting deconstruction to work was by going through art and architecture… I would say “solid” structures, not only in the sense of material structures, but “solid” in the sense of cultural, pedagogical, political, economic structures. And all the concepts which are, let us say, the target… of Deconstruction, such as theology, the subordination of the sensible to the intelligible and so forth- these concepts are effectively displaced in order for them to become “Deconstructive architecture”.” (Decon: omnibus volume, 1989, p.71-78).

As mentioned above, Derrida himself displaced his earlier opinion on deconstruction, where he reject ed the connection between deconstruction and architectural thought. Texts from Derrida’s previous writing in “Force and Signification” or “Genesis and Structure”, prior to the interview, turns on important elements within architectural metaphor. Instead Derrida has concluded that the finest way to communicate deconstruction through work is to represent it through visual arts, such as architecture.

“When you have deconstructed some architectural philosophy, some architectural assumptions- for instance, the hegemony of the aesthetic, of beauty, the hegemony of usefulness, of functionality, of living, of dwelling. But then you have to then reinscribe these motifs within the work. You can’t simply dismiss those values of dwelling, functionality, beauty and so on… Deconstruction is not simply forgetting the past” (Decon: omnibus volume, 1989, p.71-78).

Derrida in the interview later explains how deconstruction works within architecture. Deconstruction can be used to deconstruct aspect of architecture i.e., its functionality, but after the process, the aspect has to be developed back into the scheme and can’t just be forgotten.

Derrida tries to explain the term of deconstruction in the field of architecture further during an interview known as “Architecture Where the Desire May Live”.

“Now the concept of deconstruction itself resembles an architectural metaphor. It is often said to have a negative attitude. Something has been constructed, a philosophical system, a tradition, a culture, and along comes a deconstructor and destroys it stone by stone, analyses the structure and dissolves it…. It seems to me…that this is not the essence of deconstruction. It is not simply the technique of an architect who knows how to deconstruct what has been constructed, but a probing which touches upon the technique itself, upon the authority of the architectural metaphor and thereby constitutes its own architectural rhetoric. Deconstruction is not simply... the technique of a reversed construction when it is able to conceive for itself the idea of construction. One could say that there is nothing more architectural than deconstruction but also nothing less architectural.”

12

Kevin Li

“Architectural thinking can only be deconstructive in the following sense: as an attempt to visualize that, which establishes the authority of the architectural concatenation in philosophy. From this point we can go back to what connects deconstruction with writing: its spatiality, thinking in terms of a path, of the opening up of a way which—without knowing where it will lead to—inscribes its traces” (Rethinking architecture: a reader in cultural theory, 1997, p.300-305).

From the quotes above, we see Derrida draw the link between deconstruction and architecture by saying that it “resembles an architectural metaphor”. He however emphasised that deconstruction is not the case of just the undoing of construction. It is in fact an examination that “touches the technique itself upon the authority of the architectural metaphor, and thereby constitutes its own architectural rhetoric”. Architecture was seen as a form of writing to the understanding of Derrida and therefore a way of living. Derrida believed that architecture should generate “places where desire can recognize itself, where it can live” (Rethinking architecture: a reader in cultural theory, 1997, p.300-305).

13

INTERPRETATION OF DECONSTRUCTION BY ARCHITECTS 5.0

Different architects perceive deconstruction differently compared to each other. Looking at architects, Peter Eisenman and Bernard Tschumi, who have collaborated with Derrida, and Frank Gehry’s deconstruction, one can establish how they interpret deconstruction differently.

Bernard Tschumi designed “Parc de la Vilette”, where deconstruction is the main the influence within the design. With the “Parc de la Vilette”, it tried to prove that complex architecture does not need to follow the architectural traditional rules. Tschumi deconstructed the brief, which questioned and challenged the ideology of the brief itself. He would dissemble the conventions of architecture by exploiting the concepts that originated from architecture, and also elements such as literacy, philosophy and cinema.

The way Peter Eisenman perceives deconstruction can be seen in an interview held in 1988. Eisenman dismisses his work as deconstructionist, as it was not clear to him that was what he was doing in his earlier work. “I want to correct your phrase “deconstructionist work”. I am not certain that my work is Deconstructionist.” Eisenman rejected the idea of deconstruction being a style within architecture. He believed that deconstruction was not something that was associated as a style but to do with ideology.

“I think the minute the deconstruction becomes a style and fashion is when we will all be able to attack it. Prior to the show it has not been a style or fashion, it has been a way of working. I think deconstruction is a process, which could have many styles.”(Decon: omnibus volume, 1989, p.141-149).

Fig.6 P. Eisenman, Wexner Center, Plan 1989)

Fig.7 Frank Gehry, Winton Guest House

Eisenman(fig.6) was asked about the variation and modification between other architects and his. He responded with “Frank’s work is about fragmentation- and fragmentation is not deconstruction. Frank throws pieces around and fractures the structure, but basically he is talking about a nostalgia for the lost whole. My work is not about a nostalgia for the lost whole. has always pushed outside the metaphysics of architecture; that is, to shelter, to enclose, to occupy etc. if you do not maintain these then there is the destruction and not the deconstruction of architecture. I think that Zaha also operates with the metaphysics of architecture, although she might not say it that way. That would be the difference between us and Daniel and Frank Gehry” (Decon: omnibus volume, 1989, p.141-149).

However, Frank Gehry would argue that architecture is real and solid; therefore the philosophical connection with Derrida’s and his texts of words should be rejected. Gehry’s deconstruction does not have in any relation to Derrida’s, unlike Tschumi and Eisenman, although Gehry too, deconstruct his architecture by deconstructing the brief, visible in his “Winton Guest House”(fig.7). Here Gehry splits up the pavilions with different function.

14

CONCLUSION 6.0

Deconstruction influence on architecture is evidential, suggested by the chapters explored. The philosophy of deconstruction, which is derived from Derrida’s work, is clearly an influence on architects such as Eisenman and Tschumi. They took Derrida’s work, which was the deconstruction of text, as the starting platform and then applied it within their work. Although Derrida’s deconstruction clearly inspired some architects, non- Derrida deconstruction is also visible shown by Frank Gehry. Even without the relation to Derrida’s influence, Gehry’s deconstruction is not anything less and can be claimed to be deconstruction as well.

Deconstruction can be considered a true form of architecture but is not the simple case of reverse construction, which it is often misinterpreted as. Deconstruction is to do with ideology and deconstructing from within the brief. Although it dismisses architectural tradition initially, architects work the tradition back into the scheme. It may not be visible due to the distortion applied to it. Derrida himself said that the best way to present deconstruction within work is to do via architecture; therefore concluding th deconstruction can be seen as a true form of architecture.

15

BIBLIOGRAPHY 7.0

BOOKS International Union of Architects (1991). Deconstruction: a student guide. London: Academy Editions.

Andreas Papdakis, Catherine Cooke, Andrew Benjamin (1989). Deconstruction: omnibus volume. London: Academy Editions.

Philip Johnson, Mark Wigley (1988). Deconstructivist architecture. New York: The Museum of Modern Art. Mark Wigley (1993). The architecture of deconstruction: Derrida’s haunt. London: MIT Press.

Neil Leach (1997). Rethinking architecture: a reader in cultural theory. New York: Routledge. 300-328.

Collin Davies (2011). Thinking about architecture: an introduction to architectural theory. London: Laurence King.

Diane Ghirardo (1996). Architecture after Modernism. London: Thames & Hudson.

Nicholas Royle (2000). Deconstructions: a user’s guide. Basingstoke: Palgrave.

WEBSITES (2009). Deconstruction. Available: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/deconstruction. Last accessed 12th Nov 2013.

Jacques Derrida. (2009). Writing and Difference. Available: http://hydra.humanities.uci.edu/derrida/ sign-play.html. Last accessed 19th Dec 2013.

ILLUSTRATIONS Cover. Gehry, F. (1996) Dancing House (photo by author).

FIg.1 Tschumi, B. (1985) Parc de la Villette. Available at http://www.e-architect.co.uk/paris/parc-de-lavillette. Last accessed 11th Nov 2013.

FIg.2 Tschumi, B. (1985) Parc de la Villette. Available at http://www.e-architect.co.uk/paris/parc-de-lavillette. Last accessed 11th Nov 2013.

Fig.3 Derrida, J. Available at http://elenes.com/s09m/cp/pres1/corbis_derrida_bw.jpg. Last accessed 3rd Jan 2014 Fig.4 Tatlin, V. (1920) Tatlin’s Tower. Available at http://1.bp.blogspot.com/--U0w139RVL4/Ttu7PKQop3I/AAAAAAAAAEk/sUZRyafkElI/s1600/Tatlin%252527s%2BTower.jpg. Last accessed 3rd Jan 2014

16

Fig.5 Himmelblau, C. (1983) The Open House. Available at http://certifiedrandom.com/sites/certifiedrandom.com/files/writers/coop_himmelb_l_au_ch5.jpg. Last accessed at 4th Jan 2014 Fig.6 Eisenman, P. (1989) Wexner Center for the Visual Arts. Available at http://cdn.archinect.net/images/650x/hh/hht7kvszi5209dw4.jpg. Last accessed at 4th Jan 2014 Fig.7 Gehry, F. Winton Guest House. Available at http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8302/7821596470_dccd8e0108_z.jpg. Last accessed at 4th Jan 2014

17