Deconstrctivism

Acknowledgement

We would like to acknowledge and extend our heartfelt gratitude to the following persons who have made the completion of this Lecture Notes possible:

Our Dean, DR.____________________ (name of person) ,for her vital encouragement and support.

________________________________(name)… our Assistant Dean, for her understanding and assistance.

_________________________________(name ), Chair, Department of Pharmacy for the constant reminders and much needed motivation.

_________________________________(name… for the help and inspiration he extended.

All _________(name of department) faculty members and Staff

The ________________________________________… ( other contributors) , for assisting in the collection of the topics for the chapters.

Most especially to my family and friends

And to God , who made all things possible.

Page | 1

Deconstrctivism

TABLE OF CONTENTS1. Introduction 1

1.1. Deconstructivism or Deconstructionism1.2. Modernism and Postmodernism1.3. The origins of Deconstructivism1.4. Deconstructivism and Design1.5. Deconstructivism as a Style

2. History..............................................................................................................................

3. Deconstructivism Designers........................................................................................

4. Prominent Architects....................................................................................................

4.1. Jacques Derrida 4.2. Frank Gehry4.3. Peter Eisenman4.4. Rem Koolhaas4.5. Daniel Libeskind4.6. Zaha Hadid4.7. Bernard Tsuchumi

5. Deconstructivism in Architecture.............................................................................

5.1. Walt Disney Concert Hall5.2. Dancing Building by Frank Gehry5.3. Bilbao Museum Guggenheim, Spain by Frank Gehry5.4. UFA-Cinema Center, Dresden, Germany by Coop Himmelblau5.5. Wexner Centre for arts by Peter Eisenman5.6. Parc de la Villette, Paris, France by Bernard Tsuchumi5.7. Seattle Central Library, Washington by OMA/Rem Koolhaas5.8. Contemporary Arts Centre, Cincinnati, Ohio by Zaha Hadid5.9. Jewish Museum, Berlin Germany by Daniel Libeskind

6. Photo Gallery- Some Prominent Buildings................................................................

7. Deconstructivism in Different Fields: 7.1. Deconstructivism in FASHION7.2. Deconstructivism in MUSIC7.3. Deconstructivism in MOVIES7.4. Deconstructivism in ARTS7.5. Deconstructivism in PHOTOGRAPHY

8. Abstract- objective of Study....................................................................................

9. In Collage9.1. Collage Concept, Surface Development, Finishing

10.Conclusion.........................................................................................................................

Page | 2

Deconstrctivism

1. INTRODUCTION The history of design can be seen as a series of influential styles or movements which

shift the thinking of designers along new lines and which result in changes in the internal and external appearance of buildings. Every design choice is based to some extent on what has been done before. To clearly understand why these forms look the way they do and why they came into existence is a matter of history.

This report deals with the subject of ‘Deconstructivism’ as it is applied in architecture. This is one of the range of styles which has arisen in the diversification of architecture which has taken place since the 1970s. A diversification which has been called ‘Postmodernism’.

1.1. Deconstructivism or Deconstructionism.

Deconstructivism tends to produce a sense of dislocation both within the forms of projects and between the forms and their contexts. By breaking continuity, disturbing relationships between interior and exterior, fracturing connections between exterior and context. Deconstructivism undermines conventional notions of harmony, unity, and apparent stability. However, Deconstructivism is hardly a new movement, nor is it a coherent stylistic development agreed upon by some independent architects: rather it perhaps exposes the unfamiliar and the disturbing by means of deformity, distortion, fragmentation, and the awkward superimposition of jarring, disparate grids.

Late-C20 tendencies in architecture have certain formal similarities to some aspects of Russian Constructivism, such as diagonal overlappings of rectangular or trapezoidal elements, and the use of warped planes, as in the works of Lissitzky, Malevich, and Tatlin. Although many critics and protagonists have denied those similarities, and the connections are only tentative in the case of some claimed to be Deconstructivists. Deconstructivism architecture has been held to embrace the works of Coop Himmelblau, Peter Eisenman, Frank Gehry, Zaha Hadid, Rem Koolhaas, Daniel Libeskind, and Bernard Tschumi, among others.

If Deconstructivism took Russian Constructivism as its starting-point, Deconstructionism was linked to the theories of Jacques Derrida (1930–2004), and presupposed that, if architecture were a language, it was therefore capable of communicating meaning, and of receiving treatment by methods of linguistic philosophy: that raises certain difficulties, as it is arguable if late C20 and early C21 architecture possesses any claims to a vocabulary, let alone a language. Nevertheless, some (e.g. Jencks) have claimed Deconstructivism as a new paradigm, but others have questioned the wisdom of pursuing this, mindful of the impact it is having on the built environment and on future generations of architects. Those who are concerned about the legacy of Deconstructivism have perceived it as fundamentally destructive, because of its rejection of all that went before and its complete failure to provide any clear values as replacements.

Indeed, Deconstructivism has been seen as intentional aggression on human senses, abusing perceptive mechanisms in order to generate anxiety and discomfort. If this is a new paradigm, it could be cause for even deeper concern.

Page | 3

Deconstrctivism

1.2. Modernism and postmodernism

Deconstructivism in contemporary architecture is opposed to the ordered rationality of Modernism and Postmodernism. Though postmodernist and nascent deconstructivist architects both published in the journal Oppositions (between 1973 and 1984), that journal's contents mark a decisive break between the two movements. Deconstructivism took a confrontational stance to architectural history, wanting to "disassemble" architecture. While postmodernism returned to embrace the historical references that modernism had shunned, possibly ironically, deconstructivism rejected the postmodern acceptance of such references, as well as the idea of ornament as an after-thought or decoration.

In addition to Oppositions, a defining text for both deconstructivism and postmodernism was Robert Venturi's Complexity and Contradiction in architecture (1966). It argues against the purity, clarity and simplicity of modernism. With its publication, functionalism and rationalism, the two main branches of modernism, were overturned as paradigms. The reading of the postmodernist Venturi was that ornament and historical allusion added a richness to architecture that modernism had foregone. Some Postmodern architects endeavoured to reapply ornament even to economical and minimal buildings, described by Venturi as "the decorated shed." Rationalism of design was dismissed but the functionalism of the building was still somewhat intact. This is close to the thesis of Venturi's next major work, that signs and ornament can be applied to a pragmatic architecture, and instill the philosophic complexities of semiology.

The deconstructivist reading of Complexity and Contradiction is quite different. The basic building was the subject of problematics and intricacies in deconstructivism, with no detachment for ornament. Rather than separating ornament and function, like postmodernists such as Venturi, the functional aspects of buildings were called into question. Geometry was to deconstructivists what ornament was to postmodernists, the subject of complication, and this complication of geometry was in turn, applied to the functional, structural, and spatial aspects of deconstructivist buildings. One example of deconstructivist complexity is Frank Gehry's Vitra Design Museum in Weil-am-Rhein, which takes the typical unadorned white cube of modernist art galleries and deconstructs it, using geometries reminiscent of cubism and abstract expressionism. This subverts the functional aspects of modernist simplicity while taking modernism, particularly the international style, of which its white stucco skin is reminiscent, as a starting point. Another example of the deconstructivist reading of Complexity and Contradiction is Peter Eisenman's Wexner Center for the Arts. The Wexner Center takes the archetypal form of the castle, which it then imbues with complexity in a series of cuts and fragmentations. A three-dimensional grid, runs somewhat arbitrarily through the building. The grid, as a reference to modernism, of which it is an accoutrement, collides with the medieval antiquity of a castle. Some of the grid's columns intentionally don't reach the ground, hovering over stairways creating a sense of neurotic unease and contradicting the structural purpose of the column. The Wexner Center deconstructs the archetype of the castle and renders its spaces and structure with conflict and difference.

Page | 4

Deconstrctivism

1.3. The Origins of DeconstructivismWhat could possibly be the reason behind a style which appears to distort, twist, bend and

destroy the conventional (ie. Orthogonal) shape of buildings and to dissolve any obvious relationship between the function of the building and its form? For this is what Deconstructivism seems to do. Why should such a style come into existence in the first place? What purpose can it have and what is the philosophy behind it? There is a fairly clear source for the origins of such a movement and this comes from OUTSIDE the area of architecture and design and lies in the field of Freudian psychology. This idea can be outlined in point form as follows:

1) The real origins of Deconstructivism lie in the work of the Austrian psychologist Sigmund Freud (c.1890).

2) Before he revolutionized psychology in the 19th century, mental illness was assumed to be the product of some inbuilt defect in the patient or even of demonic possession.

3) Freud, in working with mentally ill patients realized that in many cases their illness was the product of events in their childhood, their background and their past experiences.

4) The patients had changed their behaviour from its normal course of development in order to cope with the pain of these events.

5) He also noted that in order to deal with these painful memories the patients REPRESSED them. That is, pushed them out of their conscious mind - tried to forget them.

6) Freud’s view was that if he could get the patient to reveal these traumatic events to themselves they would in a sense cure themselves.

7) Freud's way of doing this was to get the patients to talk about themselves and through the clues he found in their conversation reveal the deeply repressed source of their problems now buried in their unconscious mind (the 'talking cure').

8) By noting the way they avoided certain subjects and the phrases and figures of speech that they continually used, the psychologist could target those areas for analysis.

9) In other words Freud set out to 'deconstruct' the speech of his patients in order to find the repressed source of their anxiety which, once identified and opened up for discussion would resolve the problem.

10) Deconstruction in this psychological sense simply means a method of interpretation and analysis of a speech or a text.

The concept of REPRESSION as identified above can also be usefully generalized in the following way:i. The MODEL or representation of an event is inevitably less complex than the event itself. ii. The report MUST be simpler than the event reported.

In psychological terms this means that the final form of behaviour expressed by any system is a product of a mass of unseen forces. That any attempt to authentically express or represent the ‘true

Page | 5

Deconstrctivism

nature’ of a system must inevitably reveal this complexity of sources which are the basis of its expression. However, in order to function in the world, a system cannot continue to express every aspect of its organization. It must repress the character of the ‘component parts’ in order to function as a whole.

These ideas represent both a clear statement of the basis of deconstructivism and also an implied criticism of its function in architecture. Namely a potential LACK OF ECONOMY OF ACTION in revealing the character of the component parts of the system or the nature of every activity that takes place in the system. In other words: a lack of integration and elegance.

1.4. Deconstructivism As A StyleAlong with the other Postmodern styles, from the 1970s onwards, Deconstructivism criticized

and sought to remedy some particular aspect of the performance of Modern Architecture. In the case of Deconstructivism it was noted that the Modern Movement produced objects and buildings which were formal or even monumental in appearance. Even ordinary buildings and interiors with no social or significance took on a monumental character. The brutality and hostility of Modern environments clearly showed that there was something very wrong with the Modern approach to design. The reason for this was as follows:

1. Each object or part of an object and each space was precisely designed to suit a particular purpose falsely isolated from a complex of other spaces and activities.2. In the standard method of REDUCTIONISM, complexes of activities were pulled apart – analysed - and each aspect identified independently of the others. They were never re-integrated as a whole.3. The interactions, active relationships and interdependence of elements were ignored or suppressed in favour of falsely identifying their supposed unique character.4. Each interior or object, activity or event was seen to be a complete thing in itself. The space closed itself’ off and isolated from other spaces and functions.5. Every activity was forced into a regular cubic space, every junction was a right angle.

For the International Style all design problems could be solved within these precise cubic spaces. This gave Modern Movement spaces a fake monumentality and certainty. However, in the late 1980s the Deconstructivist movement began to break open the closed forms of the Modern Movement. (That is, to DE-CONSTRUCT it and accept that the character of elements is complex and derived from the interaction of many other adjacent elements). That complexity would be revealed in Deconstructive works. If not, the resulting form would be inauthentic – a lie in other words.

1.5. Deconstructivism and DesignThe general characteristics of Deconstructivist design are as follows:

1)Explodes architectural form into loose collections of related fragments.

2)Destroys the dominance of the right angle and the cube by using the diagonal line and the `slice' of space.

3)Uses ideas and images from Russian Revolutionary architecture and design -Russian Constructivism.

Page | 6

Deconstrctivism

4)Searches for more DYNAMIC spatial possibilities and experiences not explored (or forbidden) by the Modern Movement.

5)Provokes shock, uncertainty, unease, disquiet, disruption, distortion by challenging familiar ideas about space, order and regularity in the environment.

6)Rejects the idea of the `perfect form' for a particular activity and rejects the familiar relationship between certain forms and certain activities.

7)Note the work of the architects, Peter Eisenman, Bernard Tschumi and Zaha Hadid.

Note that while Memphis designs attack the lack of colour, texture, pattern or sensuality of the Modern Movement, Deconstructivism attacks the closed and precise forms and spaces of the Modern Movement. The same design attitudes are simply directed at different aspects of the design of space.

2. HistoryBut in early 20th century steel and concrete were introduced to construction. Young and

ambitious architects soon became aware of its potential and began to create completely new forms. Some of them also thought that classic ornament is totally out and clean geometric forms are the right thing to pursue. If you mix that together with uprising socialist ideas of that time (between WW I. and WW II.) you get modernistic architecture with its founder Le Corbusier. Their style is today called modernism. At the beginning they were considered quite rebellious and controversial. On the left is famous Villa Savoye which is more like a statement or manifest than a house.

In late 70's people soon realized that Le Corbusier's ideas contain too many simplifications. Many of them come from socialistic way of thinking which denies human as an individual being with individual needs and also individuality as a need itself. So they figure it out, that they should return to classic aesthetic, based on Greek temple. This new movement was later on called postmodernism (1970-1990) and is particularly significant in USA where many houses were built exactly like they were 2000 years old. Some went a bit further and used new materials, but basically they didn't invent anything new, they are usually very symmetric, they use columns and pillars, arches and other "modernised" elements of classic ancient building. The problem is, that most of those architects don't really know a lot about ancient architecture and they are just blindly repeating so soon they realised, that this is not the path to go. Two directions were formed. First is minimalism, which is theoretically based upon Mies van der Rohe's quote "less is more". That is somehow correct, but rare are those who master design so well, that can achieve high level of expression and aesthetics with such minimum.

Deconstructivism and was founded by Bernard Tschumi. They deny completely everything. Even the orthogonal geometry that was so obvious for the whole history now breaks down and is completely irrelevant. Every "rule" falls under doubt and suspicion. The term de-construct-ivism describes what happens in someone’s head; the basic idea of an object (like house, for example) is smashed [deconstructed] into smallest possible pieces, each of them is carefully thought over and then re-constructed back with new logic. Deconstructivism searches it's theoretical background in achievements of modern day science, such as psychology, biology, mechanical engineering etc. They tend to use high-tech materials that

Page | 7

Deconstrctivism

enable them new forms and shapes.

So here we are today with many great architects and designers trying to redefine our way of thinking. Many of those projects are experimental, but they might lead to new ways of designing, housing and even living. A house for today's living must include all paradigms and paradigm shifts we are facing today, incliding electronic communications, high level of individualism and rapid social and environmental changes. Constant rethinking of every possible idea might be a right answer to that.The state of architecture in the 1960s/70 there was a general feeling amongst architects and the general public that architecture, then known as the International Style had become inhumane and monotonous and hostile. The development of postmodern architecture that began in the late 1980s and early 1990s. It is spearheaded by ideas of fragmentation and a tendency to look like crystals. The style uses non-rectilinear shapes (usually triangles) which serve to distort the shape of the structure and create jutting sections for extra space. The finished visual result looks chaotic and unpredictable, but allows for extra space in ways not previously thought of.

Deconstructivism was a major theoretical theme during the 1982 Parc de la Villette architectural design competition in which entries from Jacques Derrida, Peter Eisenman and Bernard Tschumi's winning entry drew a lot of attention to the potential of the style to create buildings that look different and allow for unusual jutting areas of extra space.

The Museum of Modern Art’s 1988 Deconstructivist Architecture exhibition in New York, organized by Philip Johnson and Mark Wigley, and the 1989 opening of the Wexner Center for the Arts in Columbus, designed by Peter Eisenman, helped to further cement the foundation of a new architectural movement. The New York exhibition featured works by Frank Gehry, Daniel Libeskind, Rem Koolhaas, Peter Eisenman, Zaha Hadid, Coop Himmelblau, and Bernard Tschumi.

In the 1980's a new tendency was born: the deconstruction, which was also called "new modern architecture" in its beginning. It was meant to replace post modern architecture. A very significant difference of this style is that it started rather from an intellectual movement than from a significant building marking it's beginning. The new slogan was "form follows fantasy" analogous to the tradition formula pronounced by Sullivan "form follows function". In 1988 Philip Johnson organized an exposition called "Deconstructive Architecture" which finally brought these ideas to a larger audience. Those ideas even had a philosophical base developed by Jacques Derrida.The idea was to develop buildings which show how differently from traditional architectural conventions buildings can be built without loosing their utility and still complying with the fundamental laws of physics. The houses looked as if a bunch of parts had been thrown together and left exactly the way they fell on the floor. These buildings can be seen as a parallel to other modern arts, which also became more and more abstract, questioning whether a certain object is still art or not. Thanks to their significant differences to all other buildings, the deconstructive ones made clear to the observer, that architecture is an art and not just an engineering discipline. This movement was also inspired by the futurists of the early 20th century in Russia who also broke with all architectural conventions of their time. Because the deconstructive houses were huge abstract sculptures you can enter rather than real buildings, the number of realized works is rather small. Due to the high costs and the fact that big companies were not interested in such buildings for their representative skyscrapers and even less for their functional buildings, only small projects for the public sector or private clients were realized. Like the new roof for a lawyers office realized in 1983 until 1984 in Vienna by COOP Himmelblau.

Other members of this group were Bernhard Tschumi and Frank O. Gehry who even constructed 1978 his own house in Santa Monika CA with trash materials usually used by the third world population to build their barracks.

Page | 8

Deconstrctivism

They show structures that are even more absurd than those of other deconstructive buildings. Others often only modified the facade of their buildings, but these pavilions go even further. They have staircases leading nowhere or pylons supporting absolutely nothing. Already their names indicate the idea behind them.

Finally Daniel Liebeskind could realize in Berlin 1999 his "Jewish Museum" as an extension of the Berlin Museum which is such an important work of art that it attracts the visitors attention in a way that the art expositions in it are almost neglected. The Guggenheim Museum in NYC

From Frank Lloyd-Wright is in this aspect similar to Liebeskind's work. Hence one can see that this architecture is still up to date. Nevertheless the main tendency is going back to other forms because the deconstruction was based on provocation and experiments testing out the limits or architecture.

3. Deconstrutivist DesignersIn the 1970s a group of American architects including Peter Eisenman started to emphasize

and distort the grids and frameworks of his buildings. This was a process which became more dramatic and insistent over time up to the 1980s when Eisenman's buildings became recognizably 'Deconstructivist'. His work and writings and his discussions with Jacque Derrida on the process of deconstruction in architecture form the intellectual base of this movement. Note also the work of Zaha Hadid, Morphosis, Bernard Tschumi, Daniel Libeskind, Michael Sorkin, Coop Himmelbau, Gunter Behnisch, Lebbeus Woods, Kazuo Shinohara, SITE, amongst others.

4. Deconstructivist Architects 4.1. Jacques Derrida4.2. Frank Gehry4.3. Peter Eisenman4.4. Rem Koolhaas4.5. Daniel Libeskind4.6. Zaha Hadid4.7. Bernard Tsuchumi

5. Deconstructivism in Architecture5.1. Walt Disney Concert Hall 5.2. Dancing Building by Frank Gehry5.3. Bilbao Museum Guggenheim, Spain by Frank Gehry5.4. UFA-Cinema Center, Dresden, Germany by Coop Himmelblau

Page | 9

Deconstrctivism

5.5. Wexner Centre for arts by Peter Eisenman5.6. Parc de la Villette, Paris, France by Bernard Tsuchumi5.7. Seattle Central Library, Washington by OMA/Rem Koolhaas5.8. Contemporary Arts Centre, Cincinnati, Ohio by Zaha Hadid5.9. Jewish Museum, Berlin Germany by Daniel Libeskind

6. Photo Gallery-Some more prominent Buildings6.1. Michael Lee – Chin Crystal by Daniel Libeskind6.2. Dresden Ufa Cinema Centre by Coop Himmelblau6.3. Guggenheim Museum by Frank Gehry6.4. The Architecture of Continuity by Lars Spuybroek6.5. Performing Art Centre by Zaha Hadid6.6. Regium Waterfront by Zaha Hadid6.7. Fishdance by Frank Gehry

4.1. Jacques Derrida1. Full Name: Jacques Derrida

2. Born: July 15, 1930El Biar (Department of Algiers), France

3. Died: October 9, 2004 (aged 74)Paris, France

4. Era: 20th-century philosophy

5. Region: Western Philosophy

6. Notable ideas:

Deconstruction Différance Phallogocentrism Metaphysics of presence

Virtually every area of humanistic scholarship and artistic activity in the latter part of the 20th century felt the influence of the French philosopher Jacques Derrida, who has died at the age of 74 from pancreatic cancer.

“Deconstruction”, the word he transformed from a rare French term to a common expression in many languages, became a part of the vocabulary not only of philosophers and literary theorists but also of architects, theologians, artists, political theorists, educationists, music critics, filmmakers,

Page | 10

Deconstrctivism

lawyers and historians. The resistance to his thinking, too, was widespread and sometimes bitter, as it challenged academic norms and, sometimes, common sense.

Derrida’s name has probably been mentioned more frequently in books, journals, lectures and common room conversations during the last 30 years than that of any other living thinker. He was the subject of films, cartoons, and at least one rock song, by Scritti Politi, he generated both adulatory and vituperative journalism and he wrote some of the most formidably difficult philosophical works of his time. If he is remembered in future centuries, it is likely to be for contributions to our understanding of language, meaning, identity, ethical decisions and aesthetic values.

Derrida's starting point was his rejection of a common model of knowledge and language, according to which understanding something requires acquaintance with its meaning, ideally a kind of acquaintance in which this meaning is directly present to consciousness. For him, this model involved "the myth of presence", the supposition that we gain our best understanding of something when it - and it alone - is present to consciousness.

Derrida on the Metaphysics of PresenceOf Grammatology, one of Derrida’s earliest works, is in part an apologetics of writing in

response to a long historical preference for the spoken word.Spoken words are the symbols of mental experience and written words are the symbols of

spoken words. - AristotleA persistent attribute of Western thinking is the “metaphysics of presence.” Truths are

eternal, but in temporal human existence the eternal manifests itself as presence. Humans live in the present; therefore any eternally true idea has to make itself known in the present. The true idea appears before our conscious minds in the immediacy of our thinking of it. Truth is eternal logos; speech is verbal representation of logos. Once truth comes to mind it can immediately be spoken. Speech and thought are nearly inseparable in time; there is no delay between thinking an idea and speaking it. Speech is characterized by presence: it is produced in the ongoing stream of moments that characterize human existence. Consequently speech has been regarded as the most authentic way of representing truth. Writing is deferred speech: there is a delay between the thought and the hand’s inscription of the words representing the thought. Writing, being not present, is not as “true” as speech.

Derrida observes other aspects of speech that lend it authority and priority. Historically, spoken language emerged before writing. Children learn to speak before they learn to write. Writing is tangibly external: it requires inscribing marks on a material surface in the world, a world that is not eternal or ideal. Speech is internal, produced inside the mouth and throat; it comes out with the breath that is intrinsic to living. I hear myself at the same time that I speak. Speech takes place in the presence of a listener, whereas text might not be read until long after it was written, if ever. Speech is present, immaterial, transparent, alive.

Derrida doesn’t try to argue that writing is as close to the moment, as present, as speech is. Rather, he directs his critique against presence itself. He doesn’t try to step out of the moment into eternity; instead, he embeds presence in a broader temporal and spatial context, undermining it from within.

The movements of deconstruction do not destroy structures from the outside. They are not possible and effective, nor can they take accurate aim, except by inhabiting those structures. Inhabiting them in a certain way, because one always inhabits, and all the more when one does not expect it.

- Jacques Derrida, Of Grammatology, 1967In deconstructing the metaphysics of presence Derrida leans heavily on Heidegger, who

contended that human existence isn’t a continuous presence, a perpetual living in the moment, but

Page | 11

Deconstrctivism

is rather a duration. Being in time means being embedded in an interval whose temporal horizons stretch into the past and the future. It means having been born in a particular place and time and inevitably dying in some unpredictable place and time. These horizons inevitably influence the way we live in the moment. Ideas aren’t always present either; they take shape from prior ideas and memories, work themselves out, come to fruition, become transformed into different ideas. Ideas have history and trajectory — just like human lives. The present moment is only a trace of temporal duration as it moves from the past into future.

Again from Heidegger, Derrida rejects interiority as a criterion for truth. For humans, to be is to be in the world. In earthly existence there can be no transcendence of materiality, of incarnation, of place. The Western metaphysics of presence isn’t just temporal; it’s also spacial: it presumes the direct presence of eternal truths before the mind. But if being means being-in, then human truths, like human beings, are in the world. To uncover truths in the world requires investigation, movement, interaction with the world in its extension.

Truths, rather than being always already present in the mind, move through space and time. Truths are dynamic, taking shape not only in the unchangeable and the atemporal, but also in the play of differences across space and time. There are irreducible differences between idea and word, word and speech, speaking and hearing. Human thought depends on memory, which is the trace of past moments inscribed on the mind — so in a way even memory is exterior to thought. Likewise the signifiers of language are inscribed in memory — so speech depends on the temporal delay between learning the language and using it.

In a Heideggerian framework presence no longer has priority over deferral and spacing. Material that is immediately available to consciousness doesn’t take precedence over material retrieved from memory or self-reflection or investigation. Speaking/listening isn’t a more authentic means of communication than writing/reading. Derrida doesn’t propose that writing take precedence over speech, that reflection dominate spontaneity. Rather, he calls for an end to the represssion of pluri-dimensional symbolic thought. All conceivable ways of thinking and communicating should be explored and encouraged to the fullest.

Implications? In psychotherapy, it might be less important to close the gap between client and therapist. Therapy need not concentrate solely on the present moment of client-therapist conversation; memories, dreams, reflections, even writings, can find a place in the therapeutic relationship. In Biblical study, the spatio-temporal gap between writer and reader can become a source of meaning rather than just an obstacle. And an event in which God’s presence was experienced in real time doesn’t necessarily take priority over the event’s subsequent commemoration in text.

Page | 12

Deconstrctivism

4.2. Frank Gehry1. Full Name: Frank Owen Goldberg

2. Born: February 28, 1929 (age 84)Toronto, Ontario, Canada

3. Nationality: Canadian-American

4. Alma mater: University of Southern California

5.Awards: AIA Gold Medal National Medal of Arts Order of Canada Pritzker Prize Praemium Imperiale

6.Practice: Gehry Partners, LLP

7.Buildings: Guggenheim Museum, Walt Disney Concert Hall, Gehry Residence, Weisman Art Museum, Dancing House, Art Gallery of Ontario, EMP/SFM, Cinémathèque française, 8 Spruce Street, Ohr-O'Keefe Museum Of Art

4.3. Peter Eisenman1. Born: August 11, 1932 (age 80)

Newark, New Jersey, U.S.

2. Nationality:

American

Page | 13

Deconstrctivism

3. Works: House VIMemorial to the Murdered Jews of

EuropeCity of Culture of Galicia

Buildings and works: Falk House (House II Eisenman), Hardwick, Vermont, 1969 House VI (Frank residence), Cornwall, Connecticut, Design:

1972. Wexner Center for the Arts, Ohio State University,

Columbus, Ohio, 1989 Nunotani building, Edogawa Tokyo Japan, 1991 Greater Columbus Convention Center, Columbus, Ohio,

1993 Aronoff Center for Design and Art, University of Cincinnati,

Cincinnati, Ohio, 1996 City of Culture of Galicia, Santiago de Compostela, Galicia,

Spain, 1999 Il giardino dei passi perduti, Castelvecchio Museum,

Verona, 2004 Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe, Berlin, 2005 University of Phoenix Stadium, Glendale, Arizona, 2006

USGS satellite image of the Greater Columbus Convention

Center.

4.4. Rem Koolhaas

1.Full Name: Remment Lucas Koolhaas

2.Born: November 1944 (age 68)Rotterdam, Netherlands

3.Nationality: Dutch

4.Alma mater:

Architectural Association School of Architecture, Cornell University

Page | 14

Deconstrctivism

5.Awards: Pritzker Prize (2000) Praemium Imperiale (2003) Royal Gold Medal (2004)

6.Practice: Office for Metropolitan Architecture

7.Buildings: Casa da Música in Porto Seattle Central Library Netherlands Embassy Berlin

4.5. Daniel Libeskind

4.6. Zaha Hadid

Page | 15

1. Born: May 12, 1946 (age 66)Łódz, Poland

2. Nationality:

American and Polish

3. Practice: Studio Daniel Libeskind

4. Buildings: Imperial War Museum North Jewish Museum Berlin Contemporary Jewish Museum Royal Ontario Museum

(expansion)

Deconstrctivism

1. Born: 31 October 1950 (age 61)Baghdad, Iraq

2. Nationality: Canadian-American

3. Alma mater: University of Southern California

4. Awards: AIA Gold Medal National Medal of Arts Order of Canada Pritzker Prize Praemium Imperiale

5. Practice: Zaha Hadid Architects

6. Buildings Maxxi, Bridge Pavilion, Maggie's Centre, Contemporary Arts Center

Completed projects Vitra Fire Station (1994), Weil am Rhein, Germany Hoenheim-North Terminus & Car Park (2001), Hoenheim, France Bergisel Ski Jump (2002), Innsbruck, Austria Rosenthal Center for Contemporary Art (2003), Cincinnati, Ohio BMW Central Building (2005), Leipzig, Germany Ordrupgaard annexe (2005), Copenhagen, Denmark Phaeno Science Center (2005), Wolfsburg, Germany Maggie's Centres at the Victoria Hospital (2006), Kirkcaldy, Scotland Tondonia Winery Pavilion (2001–2006),[9] Haro, Spain Eleftheria Square redesign (2007), Nicosia, Cyprus Hungerburgbahn new stations (2007), Innsbruck, Austria Chanel Mobile Art Pavilion (Worldwide) Tokyo, Hong Kong, New

York, London, Paris, Moscow, (2006–2008) Bridge Pavilion (2008), Zaragoza, Spain J. S. Bach Pavilion, Manchester International Festival (2009), Manchester, UK CMA CGM Tower (2010), Marseille, France Pierres Vives (2002–2012), Montpellier, France, project architect:Stephane Hof MAXXI - National Museum of the 21st Century Arts (1998–2010), Rome, Italy. Stirling

Prize 2010 winner. Guangzhou Opera House (2010), Guangzhou, People's Republic of China. London Aquatics Centre (2011), 2012 Summer Olympics, London, UK. Riverside Museum (2007–2011) development of Glasgow Transport Museum, Scotland

Page | 16

Deconstrctivism

Evelyn Grace Academy (2006–2010) in Brixton, London, UK

5. Deconstructivism in Architecture – Metamorphoses of Reality

There were so many different architecture styles throughout the history, that, probably, it would be difficult to put the history of all of them into a single article. All of them have their own features, which attract people for many ages. Some architecture would amaze the environment by its beauty and originality; however, others, like deconstructivism, would rather “scare” by their own strange appearance. It might seem strange to us, regular people, but not for those, who live with it.

In comparison to other architecture styles deconstructivism would not be an old branch in the world of art architecture. The beginning of it goes back to late 1980s, the time that many of us would probably still remember. There were two sources that gave start to deconstructivism. There is a thought that it was started by the group of people called deconstructivists, who were attracted by the theories of French Philosopher Jacques Derrida. According to his philosophy, architecture is nothing but one of many ways of communication. Furthermore, another source reveals to us the idea that deconstructivism had a touch of Russian constructivism movement that took place at the same time in the history.

Looking at the type of deconstructivism architecture it seems like different parts are glued together in order to form some bigger structure. Moreover, for an architect of the last century it would seem illogical since it contradicts with the rules of structure they knew. It changes all our knowledge we had before about architecture by creating new way of thinking and design in this field of art. Deconstructivists saw the architecture in the lenses of new century, where everything takes new shapes and new appearance. Even though this style might seem different or strange to many humans, it does not mean that it is not attractive to the eyes of art-loving people.

5.1. Walt Disney Concert Hall

Page | 17

Deconstrctivism

Many of us might know at least a bit of other styles in architecture, where artists love to put ornaments in order to make the decoration of the structure look beautiful. Furthermore, geometry,

harmony and stability play a significant role in this field of work as well. On the other hand, deconstructivism would be completely opposite to it. Decoration and geometry is not necessary

anymore in this branch of architecture. Deconstructivism is the wave of absolutely new style, which believes in irregular shapes of its own creation.

There are many famous artists, whose works are marked as deconstructivistic. Among them we can find Coop Himmelblau, Daniel Libeskind, Eisenman, Gehry, Hadid, Koolhaas and a lot more. Their creations can be quite easy to recognize by their own irregular or awkward appearance. The examples of destructive creations would be seen in modern architecture, such as Michael Lee-Chin

Crystal built in Toronto, Canada, Akron Art Museum in Ohio, Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao, Dancing Building in Prague, Performing Arts Centre in Abu Dhabi, and a lot more of strange and

wonderful creations of modern architects.

5.2. Dancing Building by Frank Gehry

Page | 18

Deconstrctivism

Everything what is strange to the human eye usually keeps our attention. Whatever is not the way we know, or the way our logic and thinking work, amazes us more than those usual and traditional features we usually see in our life. Deconstructivism is exactly this style of architecture that creates

works, equally amazing and attractive to the humanity. It keeps interest of the person by its originality and uniqueness. The awkward appearance of this type of architecture is its own secret to

keep our attention.

5.3. UFA-Cinema Center, Dresden, Germany by Coop Himmelblau

Page | 19

Deconstrctivism

The Austrian firm Coop Himmelb(l)au, which now has offices in Los Angeles and Guadalajara as well as Vienna, is often credited with producing the first realizations of Deconstructivist

architecture in Europe. The cooperative’s rooftop law office extension in their home city raised eyebrows when it was erected in 1988 with its parasitic appearance, and its Funder factory building in St. Veit Glan, Austria was certainly eye-catching. In 1998, Coop Himmelb(l)au completed the UFA-Cinema Center in Dresden, Germany, which consists of two volumes: the ‘Crystal’, a massive glass lobby and public square that seems to lean precariously to one side, and the ‘Cinema Block’, which holds eight cinemas with seating for 2600. The firm says that with the UFA-Cinema Center, it aimed

to “confront the issue of public space”, saying “By disintegrating the monofunctionality of these structures and adding urban functions to them, a new urbanity can arise in the city.”

5.4. Wexner Centre for arts by Peter Eisenman

Page | 20

Deconstrctivism

New Jersey-based architect Peter Eisenman designed the first major public Deconstructivist building in America, the 1989 Wexner Center for the Arts at Ohio State University. The Wexner

Center was something of an experiment in Deconstructivism; it’s certainly not a blank, passive space for the display of art but meant to be a dynamic work of art within itself. It’s a five-story, open-air

structure featuring a prominent white gridwork that resembles scaffolding in order to appear intentionally incomplete, in a permanent state of limbo. These very design ideas have caused

significant controversy because, in some cases, they interfere with the function of the building, such as fine art exhibition spaces where direct sunlight could potentially damage sensitive works of art. Furthermore, the center has no recognizable entry, with most of the sculptural ornamentation on the sides where no doors exist. The interior spaces are no less eccentric; some visitors even report

feeling nauseas because of the ‘colliding planes’ of the design.Controversial though it may be, Eisenman’s Wexner Center remains among the most

important examples of Deconstructivism, bringing abstract ideas and theories to the fore and perhaps elevating them above purpose and practicality.

5.5. Parc de la Villette, Paris, France by Bernard TsuchumiPage | 21

Deconstrctivism

The Parc de la Villette in Paris is unlike any public park you’ve ever seen, with its strange network of bright red structures designed, according to architect Bernard Tschumi, not for ordered relaxation and self-indulgence but interactivity and exploration. Built from 1984

to 1987 on the grounds of a former meat market, the park contains themed gardens, playgrounds for children, facilities dedicated to science and music and 35 architectural

follies, all of which are inspired by the ideas of Deconstructivism. Visually and intellectually stimulating, the steel follies provide a frame for activity, in contrast to the

idea of a park as open green space.

5.6. Seattle Central Library, Washington by OMA/Rem Koolhaas

Page | 22

Deconstrctivism

5.7. Contemporary Arts Centre, Cincinnati, Ohio by Zaha Hadid

Page | 23

Deconstrctivism

Baghdad-born, Britain-based Zaha Hadid, the first woman to win a Pritzker Prize, has also contributed a number of notable Deconstructivist works to international architecture. One such structure, Hadid’s first design to ever be built, is the 2003 Lois and Richard Rosenthal Center for

Contemporary Art in Cincinnati, Ohio. Known popularly as the Contemporary Arts Center (CAC), the building is both blocky and soft, defined by geometric volumes on the facade and featuring an

unusual ‘urban carpet’, with the ground slowly curving upward from the sidewalk outside into the building and ultimately up the back wall. A ramp resembling a twisted spine draws visitors up to a

landing at the entrance to the galleries.

5.8. Jewish Museum, Berlin Germany by Daniel LibeskindPage | 24

Deconstrctivism

Is Daniel Libeskind’s Jewish Museum in Berlin the best example of Deconstructivism in the world? This zig-zagging structure, clad in thin zinc sheeting punctuated by windows in shapes meant to recall wounds and scars, houses two millennia of German Jewish history. It sits upon a space once occupied by the Berlin Wall, and butts up to an 18th century appeals court which is also part of the museum. Its shape is said to be inspired by a warped Star of David, and its jaggedness is likened to the human condition. A huge void cuts through the form of the museum, symbolizing the absence

left by the thousands of Berliners who were killed or deported in the Holocaust.

Page | 25

Deconstrctivism

6. Photo Gallery- Some Prominent Buildings

Fishdance by Frank Gehry

Regium Waterfront by Zaha Hadid

Page | 26

Deconstrctivism

Michael Lee – Chin Crystal by Daniel Libeskind

Dresden Ufa Cinema Center by Coop Himmelblau

Page | 27

Deconstrctivism

Project for Istanbul by Zaha Hadid

Performing Art Centre by Zaha Hadid

Page | 28

Deconstrctivism

The Architecture of Continuity by Lars Spuybroek

Guggenheim Museum by Frank Gehry

Page | 29

Deconstrctivism

Deconstructivism in FashionAccording to Martin Mcquillan,

deconstruction is the rethinking of the conceptual and non-conceptual foundations of the western tradition. It examines the way in which Western thought is structured. Jacques Derrida suggested that Western thought is structured in terms of binary oppositions, the separation of conceptual material such as Man/Woman; Black/White equally. However, these terms are not true opposites since one is always privileged over the other. An example he gives would be the concept of speech as more important than and as logically prior to writing. Another example from Helene Cixous exhibits the advantage of a masculine characteristic over feminine ones and how such binary oppositions are not the way things are but how is perceived by western though.

The privileging of terms is called logo centrism. It divides the world into a binary system of oppositions and proceeds to change the weight and importance of on both sides of the world and ends up with a way of thinking which makes thoughts impossible without an appreciation of the ‘inherent’ superiority of one term over the other.

Deconstruction suggests that opposite concepts are constructions. Yes and no are words that represent opposing feelings but the words themselves are not opposites. Black and white represent associations that change from culture to culture.

Deconstruction, Mcquillan thinks, reminds us of the different perceptions of each individual of the world. In an example, the term ‘Here and now’ is never identical to the actual moment in which one was referring to. He also mentioned that logo centrism is a form of metaphorisation. All words are metaphors in which a word could bring about images of things closely related to it and that the successful maintenance of this depends upon users of language to be ignorant about it.

For deconstruction to take place, the binary must be reversed, as showing that binary opposition at work is necessary. Deconstruction is a false opposition working, however, stopping it would restore the inequality and there would be no changes towards the unequal system in the first place. Therefore, it is necessary to remove the whole system of binary thinking and binary logic which is the only way the binary is said to be undone.

Comme de Garcons, 2006, the design combines two opposing aesthetics giving both a presence but denying either totality. Both aesthetics are in play with one another.

However, deconstruction shows that it is impossible to escape from logo centric thinking as escaping from it requires thinking in a way not yet though of and the only way to think in another way would be to think in our current logo centric mode of thought. Similar to the unconscious, it would be part of our conscious once we recognize it. To escape this logo centrism would lead us to back to logo centrism. Hence the beginning statement of deconstruction is an impossible method as while deconstructing, one is still constructing. See Alexander McQueen deconstructing here.

Page | 30

Deconstrctivism

In Deconstruction:The making of unfinished, decomposing and re-assembled clothes, Allison Gill explores and dissects the meaning of ‘deconstruction’ in Fashion as well as philosophy, fueled by the writings of Jacques Derrida. She begins with the start of deconstructed fashion, enabled by experiments in architectural design following the Deconstructivist Architecture exhibition at MoMA in 1988. Both design forms share a range of similar concepts such as structure, form, fabrication and construction.

The transparency of forms in Comme des Garcons and Maison Martin Margiela, 2009

She states that deconstruction in fashion is somewhat like an auto-critique of the fashion system, revealing the draw and attraction of fashion such as the glamour, fantasy and exclusivity and technical aspects such as form, stitches and fabrication. Deconstruction, in a literal level, conotates the reversal of construction, thus the unfinished or destroyed look of garments. Deconstruction was first seen as a rebellion against fashion in the 80s and the acceptance and movement into the domain of fashion was deemed contradictory and deconstruction was seen as another superficial trend.

Karl Lagerfeld, Dries Van Noten, and Hussein Chalayan, F 2009In the second part of the article, Gill wanted to suggest that there was more to the

association of dress and deconstruction than a wish to destroy functionality. The deconstruction style in the recession zeitgeist was more of a reflection of issues related to a particular time period, hence decaying garments to economic recessions.

The general definition of deconstruction as a practice of undoing construction would mean the liberation of garments from its function, which is not applicable. Her point is that deconstruction

Page | 31

Deconstrctivism

is the dressed down version for it’s application to fashion and that fashion could possibly have a prescribed function.

Derrida refuses to define exactly what deconstruction is as that would repeat the tradition in philosophy, the mode of questioning where a name seeks to represent the essence of the subject which could be seen as the construction and basis on how something is defined in philosophy. The word ‘Deconstruction’, as the undoing of construction, is not only unable to capture the essence of deconstruction itself, but Derrida also felt that there is no definite answer for what deconstruction for this though process of deconstruction could never be fully comprehended.

Deconstructed fashion is neither purely about philosophy nor about fashion. It is a different thinking of fashion. Margiela however revisits and reconfigures fashion and that the form is always produced through fashion’s history and that the ideal form is made at the expense of history that creates the desire for that ideal and that these forms are reflections on it’s place in the history of fashion.

Deconstructivism in MUSICDeconstructivism in MOVIES

Deconstructivism in ARTSDeconstructivism in PHOTOGRAPHY

Page | 32

Margiela, Spring 2009

Deconstrctivism

ConclusionWhat is the reality behind all this heavy-weight philosophy and psycho-

babble? It is that Deconstructivism has become a fashionable style which is simply different from and perhaps no more 'meaningful' than other styles. What we see is that designers who know nothing about the background to Deconstructivism and care even less, produce what we would 'recognize' as a Deconstructed building. The ultimate test is this, can we tell the difference between a building designed by a card-carrying, fully aware, Deconstructivist architect and a building styled by another designer to look like a Deconstructivist building? The answer is, probably not. It is what the building looks like 'on the ground' so to speak that is the bottom line on this issue. What the designers think they are doing - no matter how 'meaningful' or significant to them - and what they actually do can be seen as two different things. In other words, it does not matter what the designer thinks, it is what he or she produces that is important to us, the users/observers.

BibliographyThere are no sources in the current document.

ContentsDerrida on the Metaphysics of Presence................................................................................................................11

Buildings and works:....................................................................................................................................................14

5. Deconstructivism in Architecture....................................................................................................................16

– Metamorphoses of Reality....................................................................................................................................16

6. Photo Gallery- Some Prominent Buildings......................................................................................................25

Bibliography.....................................................................................................................................................................32

Page | 33