Deconstructionism "Understanding Thought"

[mx2]

There tends to be a manner in which we all discuss ideas: the topic gets sidetracked by commenting on one portion of many good ones...which then deviates unto the next. It's much like any informal discussion we may all have with others in many social contexts. However, I dod agree the goal is (should be) to further the topic rather than to define it, or a part of it. That said, usarender wrote a great post in this regard.

I would only try to further the topic by narrowing in on "deconstructionism" which by definition has always been about breaking down the way we think about our realities and re-visiting their nature. This is the metaphysical aspect that is fundamental to decon, as a philosophy. I am glad to see many here push for better conceptual design, rather than building design. That was where the topic deviated into functionalism vs form. And in retrospect, the response to that should have been to highlight the fact that both notions are outside of this topic...that before we beging to make our decisions we have to gather our thoughts on a subject/project and those thoughts begin by examining all that we know. I've tried to argue that even those who say that it is a waste of time and leads to rhetoric and stylistic tendencies are inherently influenced by their experiences and emotions that greatly influence their thoughts on every single decision they make. My argument is that we cannot escape our thoughts and simply design by logic. We are influenced by so much and the many who attempt to revisit their realities and peak over their shoulders to see the light of the cave (Plato's allegory) will always be able to more appropriately design for the true needs of their clients.

The interesting things about movements such as deconstructionsim is that once they expose a certain fundamental about truth and existence, we're forever indebted to their causes. In other words, we reap what others have previously sown, and in this case, my fear has been that through the liberalization of thought on so many levels, this has caused a certain level of apathy in design. It is human nature to feel comforted by parameters (ever try to design with a blank sheet of paper and no assignment?) and can flourish within those boundaries. Too much freedom (in this case we're speaking of the freedom of thought) and we often shrink before the enormity of possibilities. Deconstructionism had one critical point to it...which was to reconfigure our realities based on newfound truths. Many stopped short of simply breaking down our realities and decided that was revolutionary enough. However, the value of free thinking is to re-organize our thoughts and narrow it back down to a new "truth" that can lead to "best" decision-making. And this circles nicely back to the original question:

[mx2]

p.s. - sorry, the functionalism vs form was another thread/discussion. I have too many discussions going on in my mind that they're beginning to overlap....

mx2.5

[solidred]

I'm not bothered if discussions like these meander... the point for me is that people write thoughtfully in the context of what other people have said and in a general relationship to architecture as opposed to, say, baseball. Otherwise, I'd expect a 'sticking to the topic' discussion to, in this instance, delve far more deeply into deconstruction philosophy or at least a discussion centered on those architects who have explicitly taken up the philosophy. I guess phenomenology, neuro-physiology and broader semiology would also feature. But I'd say that's the kind of discussion more suited to an invited panel, the members being experts on the topic(s). In a more general discussion forum like this, the specific subject matter of deconstruction would exclude all but the most studious of intellectuals...

I find it interesting, though, that the implicit question 'why have this type of discussion in relation to architecture at all?' that has been implied during this discussion, bears some relationship to the 'why' as posited by philosophers of earlier times.
And have you ever repeated a word (why, why why, why, why...ad infinitum) so many times it gradually empties of meaning? Is that deconstruction, albeit by repetition rather than by analysis?

[Richard Haut]

Solid has got the essential point: it is like asking "why". There are two ways to ask it: firstly to ask "why" in order to seek a greater understanding (in other words a genuinely interrogative statement), or the second which is merely a reactive "why" like a stroppy child in response to whatever is asked.

is so much of what has been done architecturally in the last few decades so bad ? I think that that would be unjust. Similarly the idea of, say, a city designed by deconstructivists would give me the horrors.

to me, much deconstructive design is simply reactive - different for the sake of difference, wilfully seeking to jar against its urban context.

sadly it brings us back to the "carbuncle" problem. For Prince Charles to have picked on one, then young, firm was shameful, but we can understand what he was saying. The reality is that the "oddity" building has to be that much better, to work that much harder not merely to be different, but to enhance and renew its context - and he was not willing to give it the chance. Like a troupe of acrobats - the really talented one is the one who clowns around on the high-wire.

[csintexas]

In my view the original discussion was never directly about deconstructionist architecture but philosophy in general. Now that we are talking about deconstruction architecture in specific I found this: http://www.imageandnarrative.be/uncanny/bartvanderstraeten.htm

[P.C.]

Please allow me to ask, --- is there any way you can realise decons. in a structural way ?

I regret my lack of knowleage about this issue, but whatever I read, each new paper describe the style in a different way, The nearest I ever came , jettison the academic angle, is that decon are a whole assembled by various basic elements from earlier styles , please don't blame me if again I misunderstood deconstructionism, but so many oposing items had been named deconstructionism, for me everything would be much easier if there was a clear description, but I newer found one, so --- is there any way you can realise decons. in a structural way ?

[Richard Haut]

Deconstruction - by one definition - "is characterized by ideas of fragmentation, an interest in manipulating ideas of a structure's surface or skin, non-rectilinear shapes which serve to distort and dislocate some of the elements of architecture, such as structure and envelope. The finished visual appearance of buildings that exhibit the many deconstructivist "styles" is characterised by a stimulating unpredictability and a controlled chaos."

[P.C.]

Thank's --- It is just this line I find most problematic ;

"manipulating ideas of a structure's surface or skin, non-rectilinear shapes which serve to distort and dislocate some of the elements of architecture"

For me surface and skin is just the side effect of structure, no skin or surface without structure so to say. The end result are in all decisions not as a particular "finish" , The finish the shape and form are there from the start it is not alian towerds the structure but a result of the structure.

[Richard Haut]

in expert hands, the notion of decon-recon makes sense - the notion of deconstructing the elements of a structure to then, and most importantly, reconstruct using the elements of the original in a new way. That certainly and primarily involves the structure.

otherwise it is merely styling.

regrettably this destruction-must-be-creative-and-lead-to-something-better notion has a more sinister side: those who studied under Leo Strauss at Chicago evolved the notion that if everything gets smashed up, then something better must emerge. They are known as the "Neo-Cons".

[P.C.]

I Agrea perfectly, then something better will be created with the experience, that tearing apart to pieces that make no meaning without particular others, must review the traces of the old parts in the new , at little structural integrety one can emagine ,sorry I still find the concept difficult.
My problem with all these -isms are that for instance, I love the Brutalism.
Endore everything in the constructivism . but what bind these together, is materials ,also design ofcaurse still just there, among what was envisioned in the 1920' 30' , was not projected with computers .
Building anything on the other hand is no problem today, case you honor just one new way to realise the structure ; there I would think the results of just taking apart the architecture would provide atleast a structure. "my" house though the best house I can emagine are but structure, I can easily emagine what to tear off a design and assemble it in another, what that provide I can also project , there will be a house ,but frankly I will not know ehat kind of house, bside isn't decons not what we anyway are doing?

[JingYao]

Hi.

I know very little about deconstruction in architecure and having been trying to understand deconstruction in philosophy, much i have read, little i have understood, however the little i understood i would like to share my tiny opnion.

Deconstruction, i think is a French word which perhaps adopted in the English language without translation, I think it means de-construction, as to un-construct or analysis, rather than to destruct or frament.

I think the notion of deconstruction philosophy is to un-construct a sensence apart, and construct many different sentences refering to its context as to explore other meaning. Similar to the process of concept abstraction, we abstract the essense of the sentence from many constructed sensences, as the true meaning of the sentence. In a way the sentence is understood as concept, not as a definition, it cannot be explaing but comtemplated as a singular object of thought. As a concept held together perhaps by an arbitary word, but in this case we do not need to create a new symbol to hold its meaning, but taking the oringinal sentence as reference. In a way, after deconstruction process we would have understood the original sentence better.

I think OMA seattle library is a good example, that the depart of the deconstruction process was the typology 'library', they deconstructed and reconstructed with the context of today, and i think they successfully reconstructed a new typology or a concept for a library today.


How this process is applied to the material work, i have not understood, what is the significance of having a building constructed of fragments and angular components i wish someone could shed some light on that.

[usarender]

I find the article interested, particularly the comment on the Tschumi project "The result of this "superimposition", as Tschumi calls it, is, according to Mark Wigley, a "series of ambiguous intersections between systems […] in which the status of ideal forms and traditional composition is challenged." and " Ideas of purity, perfection, and order, become sources of impurity, imperfection, and disorder" (Wigley in Broadbent 1991: 17). " and further -->>

"The inherent purity of the geometrical system evokes a feeling of rational control and stability. If things turn out differently, then, and the juxtaposition of several "pure" systems gives way to impurity, the geometric system's rational control over that which "ought to have remained secret", weakens. The repressed leaves its enclosed habitat and thus provokes in us an uncanny feeling. In the case of Tschumi's Parc de la Villette, the uncanny does not function as a physical motif that threatens the bodily integrity of passers-by, but rather as a theoretical concept that helps to undermine and - indeed - deconstruct traditional humanist and functionalist architectural discourses."

Under this context, Deconstructionalism can be seen as a reaction against the "pure" forms of spam Constructionalism, just as other movements typically become a reaction to another movement, and on and on.. each one pretending to be a more "resolved", or " pure " form of designing. It seems, then that architects in the past, and until today are constantly trying to re-define the aesthetic function in terms of reactionary individualistic contextual interpretation of a previous movement, in an attempt to re-codify the values in favor of an alternate solution. It seems this eternal dispute goes on, and these forums is no exception.

[mx2]

exactly that...these ideas live on and I suspect will always re-emerge simply because they are based on fundamentals...in this case, the fundamental of "idea". Deconstructionism in essence is/was about "breaking down" what we know, disseminating the pieces-parts and re-assembling them to represent a new "nature, a new "truth". In essence, it was more to point out that the rigidity of the "pure" ideas being lauded as the ONLY way to design was nothing but rhetoric and circular argument. By proving that something new could be litereally constrcuted from the deconstructed version of the pure designs, there was little argument to say that the purists were correct.

In speaking of the thought process behind design, you could say that it is an exercise of re-examing all that we know and re-constructing them into something else. The problem arises in that "something else". It's very difficult to defend a project that has seemingly random/fragmented ideas that resulted in an explosion of materials. This is basically the same problem "blob-itecture" has faced...

mx2.5

[usarender]

There are times when we as architects must "brake down all we know" into fragments of information and then "re-assemble it " into a breathing orderly system that awakens a new consciousness of our existence and inspires a new generation to metaphysically establish a new mental connection. This is in essence the re-wiring of our brain, often due to "information over-load". We can define it as a new movement, but we in essence, as creative individuals need to, at times, brake down the values of the past, the order given to us as the "ultimate truth" and conspire to re-create the order that will give a new meaning to the elements. This eternal quest for a re-structuring of thought into a new semantics is an eternal quest in architecture. The moment we cease to re-order our mental structure, is the moment we fall into a cataclysm of lack of creativity, lack of inspiration and loose our vision towards the world around us, in my opinion.

[jefffryfry]