Deconstructionism "Understanding Thought"

[P.C.]

Yes , being so unispired that only what is already here , just put together or realised in a different way deliver the fraction of newthinking that is called for, then things realy are bad ---- but that's why architecture has to change, tossing around members newer in ballance unless restored to the reson that created it , there realy are a need for some change, and true, it's in your minds.

[JingYao]

Usarender, I agree with you completely.
The questions is then how do we do this? Where do we start? Are there any methodologies?

As Einstein said 'you cannot solve problem with the same level of consciousness created it', I guess it means to solve physical problem, we have to look at it from an abstract perspective. If the problem is about how we think about a problem, then we have to think about thinking.

[solidred]

usarender writes: "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."

Exactly. 'Though I would say it's more conversation than dispute; more questioning than disagreement. Interrogation of the status quo, after all, keeps culture up-to-date with current circumstances but simultaneously retains traces of the culture that once was. And it's not that our forebears were mistaken: simply that their context was different. For us to repeat the glories of ancient Greece would, for us, be the mistake, as would ignoring it altogether.

Then, for what it's worth, Jing Yao's interpretation of Decon is pretty similar to my own, except I suspect that Jing Yao has studied the subject slightly more closely than I have...

Finally, a note on terminology. My understanding of the labels is thus:

Constructivism: early 20th C spam avant garde movement

Deconstruction: late 20th C French philosophical approach led by Jacques Derrida

Deconstruction Architecture: the transferrence of said philosophical approach to architecture, chiefly by Peter Eisenmann and to some extent Bernard Tschumi (although not explicitly so).

Deconstructivism: an architecture which can be related to Deconstruction but which is focused primarily upon the aesthetic effects achieved using certain techniques on the source vocabulary of Constructivism. The early work of Zaha Hadid is the leading example.

Then again, some argue that in his play on structural motifs, Eisenmann is essentially a Postmodernist, if not a Classical Postmodernist. But if I go on any more I'm in danger of turning into a Charles Jencks puppet; sorta reverse-pinnochio, so I'll stop...

[csintexas]

I don't believe there is anything profound in deconstruction architecture.

Although it may be appropriate in some cases like the holocaust museum mostly it's like this:


http://www.roadsideamerica.com/set/teepee.html

Come spend your money here, not only do we have lots of interesting things to see inside but the building itself is part of the attraction.

Now that I think about it, this pretty well explains most Architecture from 1950 -> forward

[usarender]

Good explanation by Solid Red. More should be expounded upon pertinent to the aesthetic functions which were the primary focus. It seems some of the definition here has focused more on Deconstruction Architecture, when some are concerned with Deconstructivism. So we all need to be more specific, more clear what we are referring to, or the confusion will continue.

Now, a good issue is whether or not the profound nature of the thinking as pertinent to architecture evokes a complexity or profoundness of form, elements and interpretation as it reveals itself in the architectural form. To me, there is much complexity and contradiction in such architecture, so one could not argue it is not profound.

JingYao's quotation of Einstein brings up an interesting point -->>

'you cannot solve problem with the same level of consciousness created it'

The moment of creation, of inspiration always carries with it a multitude of symbols, of images, of associations and it may difficult to "capture" the moment, in the same way one can capture a picture. So, in essence, it is difficult to re-create the same level of consciousness to solve the problem, as the issues begin to interfere with the sub-conscious process of integration, and the rational and sub-conscious intuitive ideas begin to interact within the complexity of the system and produce a different result then would be naturally produced at the time of the original inspiration, if it could be "captured" in a frame, as a camera captures an image.

So in this attempt to formalize a complex system, we are left with only traces of methodologies and ways of thinking long past that each had it's own historical, cultural and reactionary reason and logic. To try to transfer this logic completely over to the solution of a modern problem, when the formula of elements is different is not a rational approach. As you suggested, the problem may be "thinking about the problem". The result is that we need to think about what we are thinking.

Mr. Nelson

Project Liquid Universe Coordinator

http://www.globaldeveloper.net/

[Landy]

understanding thought?
that makes sense...

[Quick dimension1]

It seems as though every one has provided, in some cases, a clear and concise response to each discussion regardless of the tangents or areas of interest. The idea of understanding how and why design is conceived is not a new one. Perhaps it’s not about understanding the how and why, but more about the dialog of how and why, if that makes any sense. There is always one thing that takes precedent in design – an understanding, a perspective of our reflections. This being the case, it seems the ephemeral- (the short life and death of transparent and opaque substance) and the temporal- (the natural rhythm or reoccurrence of a system) always seem to dictate and shape how I perceive the world, so for me, this is where design begins, but I could never capture the true nature of this reflection because the words and artifacts that I produce to try and explain this phenomena is far from the truth.


-

[mx2]

The ephemeral and temporal phenomenas are but tools to be used to shape an idea...they ought not be the subject of understanding themselves, as one cannot deduce with finality what "time" truly consists of...you will long perish before figuring it out. And that is not the intent of having a few weeks/months to think about a design...

mx2.5

[Quick dimension1]

I agree. Ultimately, by understanding what makes things temporal and ephemeral & and then to try and supplement the phenomena; then it becomes real. Hence, it’s no so much that a design should reflect the temporal and ephemeral, but it’s more about the sublimity of the understanding.

[csintexas]

I still can't understand what the purpose of all this new age philosophy.

Time consist of a series of events.

[Quick dimension1]

Exactly… Time consist of a series of events, right? That’s the problem…We tend to take this notion at face value. “Time” what is time? It would be a big mistake to conclude that the dialog in this forum is about time – it’s far from it. I would argue that the dialog is more about taking the blindfold off, focusing and really seeing. Theoretically speaking.

`

[csintexas]

yeah, people in the 60's thought that they could use drugs to expand their consciousness but all they did was escape reality. Now it's the idea that if we "think creatively" (metaphysics) somehow we will discover some "truth" that we wouldn't otherwise see.

Certainly we can all agree that we need to be creative thinkers, furthermore I understand that some people are more spiritual than others. No doubt we should all do what works best for us as individuals but I don't actually believe this will help us produce better architecture. I do think that reflecting on ourselves and the big picture will help us to become better people though.

[Quick dimension1]

Notes from undergroud: You believe in a crystal edifice, eternal and imperishable, an edifice in which one can never stick out his tongue or make a fist...you see if there was a spam coop instead of your palace and it begins to rain, I may crawl into this spam coop to avoid getting wet. Yet I will not imagine that this spam coop is a palace out of gratitude, because it gave me shelter from the rain. You are laughing; you even say that in such a case a spam coop and a mansion are the same. Surely - I answer you- if the sole purpose of living is to keep from getting wet.

-

[csintexas]

It is standard practice to give the author credit.

You think I should not question the value of using metaphysics as a tool for creating architecture? Who actually believes in the Crystal Palace here

[mx2]

Chris ought to try and understand but he remains biased towards anything that seems logically a waste of time...the intellectualizing of an otherwise scientific approach to him is like trying to explain a work of art.

Chris, man, you should at least allow us to try and further our own discussion and share our ideas that have merit in itself rather thatn coyly start with the sarcasm. This is not dropping acid to try and understand why clouds are flying...as proven by the fact that this discussion is as aged as man. Some choose to ignore the bigger pciture and prefer to simplify life and just get to work. But many others do enjoy thinking about more than the basics that we have all come to accept. It's like the saying goes; "think outside the box".

Speaking of time, I on the other hand beleive that time is a manmade concept in order to better communicate to each other. It's all circular and never ending but since we are the center of our universes, we relate all we know to the fact that we're going to die and the miniscule cycles of nature that occur before that ending. The sun actually revolves around earth, so what truly is "morning"?

That said, I would agree quickdimension, that the sublime interpretation of our temporal experiences (in context of the typical understanding of time ) when thought about in the ephemeral moment (usually in the context of the design problem in front of you) is part of the task of thinking that we take for granted...we all do it all the time. But the conscious effort to do so, I think is at the heart of this matter, as best described by Chris's reactions. I think this is what differentiates rationalization from intuition...perhaps.

mx2.5