Introduction
Deconstructive in architecture, also known as deconstruction is a type of postmodern architecture that started in the 1980s. It is characterized by ideas of fragmentation, an interest in manipulating ideas of a structure’s surface, non-linear processes of design, and use of non-Euclidean geometry or so called non-rectilinear shapes, which distort and dislocate some of the elements of architecture, such as structure and layout. The visual appearance of a finished building that exhibits many deconstructivist styles is characterized by a stimulating unpredictability and a controlled chaos. The influence of the prominent architects of contemporary society on successive generations is unquestionable though it is worth arguing whether the impact of architects can be decisive for shaping the tendencies in the architecture of the future or the reoccurrence of more classical traditions will form the buildings of the coming decades.
Deconstructivist Architecture
The principles of deconstructivist architecture aesthetics
The results of unexpected experiments of deconstructivist architects have proven that the application of the principles of deconstruction philosophy to the spheres of architecture and design can be fruitful. Though deconstructivism has never been a dominating style in architecture, the samples of deconstructivist buildings became an integral part of the world’s heritage and capture the attention of architecture theoreticians and art lovers. Besides, the buildings designed using the deconstruction as the prevailing style that emerged from postmodernist movement in architecture is claimed to be original and thought-provoking due to unusual shapes, materials, and directions. Moreover, such architects as Frank Gehry, Daniel Libeskind, Rem Koolhaas, Peter Eisenman, Zaha Hadid, Coop Himmelblau, and Bernard Tschumi are masters in their field in spite of criticism of this movement and critical acclaims of methods used by deconstructivist masters.
The design of the Parc de la Villette in Paris by Bernard Tschumi as a deconstructivist project
Deconstructivism gained great interest during the 1982 Parc de la Villette architectural design contest in which entries from Jacques Derrida, Peter Eisenman, and Bernard Tschumi’s winning design attracted a lot of attention to the contest due to the possibility of the style to create buildings that look different from the traditional ones and allow for unusual popping out areas for extra space. The exhibition, 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. However, this does not mean that other movements became insignificant for this period as the deconstructivism emerged. Every architect who displayed his/her works for contemporary exhibitions was unique due to the techniques used while constructing the deconstructivist buildings.
The ultimate goal of deconstruction in architecture is to get architects to think of things in a new way, to view architecture in bits and pieces. Also to develop buildings which show how differently from traditional architectural conventions buildings can be built without losing their utility and still complying with the fundamental laws of physics. Some of the deconstructivist buildings have been criticized for their eccentricity. Denying the extravagance of the architectural style as a whole, the representatives of the movement recognize that it is a central aim of some designers. Still, the dominance of the form over the functionality of the building is inadmissible. Most deconstructivist architects give preference to reaching a compromise between a form and functionality of a building. “If architectural considerations dictate such a compromise, but a deliberate search for extravagant forms to the detriment of the function is usually unacceptable” (Sebestyen and Pollington 17). Thus, making original design decisions, deconstructivist architects manage to express the disharmony of surrounding world in their projects without overemphasizing it. The balance can be considered the key concept of the deconstructivism architects who managed to keep their projects sustainable and applicable for the modern society with its recurring taste preferences.
As opposed to modernists who focused on harmony, ideal proportions and beauty, deconstructivist architects shifted the main emphasis to the exhibition of contradictions. “Deconstructivist architects disrupted traditional architectural regimes by identifying ‘repressed’ styles within the local context of a site, then forcefully combining the repressed motifs in a single building without any concern for overall unity or design” (Picon and Ponte 329). Thus, focusing on separate details, the representatives of deconstructivism in architecture did not pay much attention to integrity of the elements within the project. Neither did deconstruction architects pay much attention to the integrity of the environment as the buildings designed in a new provocative style stood out against the background of rather dull and boring setting of postmodern and modern design. A comprehensive analysis of particular deconstructivist buildings requires consideration of the local context, the relations between the original forms and functionality of the construction as well as the meaning and role of every particular element. In this respect, it is necessary to argue about the applicability of this style to the existing environment taking into account the balance concept and harmony of rather large areas.
One of the most renowned deconstructivist projects is the design of the Parc de la Villette in Paris by Bernard Tschumi. The prize for filling the empty space in the city’s landscape was offered by the French government in 1982. Tshumi’s design was chosen by the juries from the wide range of other projects. The architect revolutionized the accustomed definition of a park as a space where visitors are expected to forget the rush of the city. On the contrary, Parc de la Villette is an urban park which indicated the break with the tradition of the modernist functionalism. The fact that the architect placed the red cubicles at a regular distance from one another throughout the park and the implementation of the geometrical principle which actually contradict deconstructivism aesthetics can be explained with the architect’s intention to imitate the urban landscape and its peculiarities. Though Bernard Tschumi won the contest, his project combined other styles with the main idea of deconstructions imitated with the help of symmetrically put figures.
Tschumi expressed his views on the main principles of architecture in 1987: “[M]y pleasure has never surfaced in looking at buildings, at the ‘great works’ of the history or present of architecture, but rather in dismantling them” (Masschelein and van der Straeten “The Uncanny and the Architecture of Deconstruction”). The principles of dismantling the constructions and superimposing various elements have been implemented in the project of the park. Three autonomous systems of points, lines and surfaces were used by Tschumi for uniting the diversified elements of his construction into an architectural whole. Disregarding the repetition of rectangular lines and the incorporation of the systems of points, lines and surfaces, Tschumi’s project of the Parc de la Villette can be recognized as one of the deconstructivist constructions due to violation of the principles of the modernist functionality and the disharmony which is exhibited within the project though not overemphasized. In other words, the tradition of deconstructivism can be easily traced in this park in spite of the number of symmetrically placed objects: The lack of harmony and balance are, in this case, the peculiar features of the style and project in particular.
Gehry’s house as one of classical examples of deconstructivist architecture
Frank Gehry is one of the architects known for his fidelity to the principles of deconstruction. Gehry’s house is recognized as one of classical examples of deconstructivist architecture, taking into account its style and contrasts with the surroundings. “The house is seen to provoke conflict within the neighbourhood due to its public representation of hidden aspects of its context. The Gehry House violates the neighbourhood from within” (Picon and Ponte 329). This principle applied to a living house supports the idea of specific disharmony and lack of balance perfectly. It is necessary to contrast this building to the park project designed by Tschumi who used the symmetry of shapes and placement in combination with deconstruction aesthetics of disharmony aimed at distinguishing the project among other surrounding ones and making it the brightest features in the neighbourhood.
Frank Gehry’s own home, in Santa Monica, California, he began with a traditional tract home with clapboard siding and a gambler roof. Gehry removed the interior and re-invented the house as a work of deconstructionist architecture. After stripping the interior down to the beams and rafters, Gehry wrapped the exterior with what appears to be scraps and rubbish: plywood, corrugated metal, glass, and chain link. As a result, the old house still exists inside the envelope of the new house. The Gehry House was completed in 1978. The choice of the materials and the original design decisions are predetermined with the peculiarities of deconstructivist architecture aesthetics. In other words, the principles of harmony still exists in deconstruction applied by Gehry because he managed to make the house comfortable inside due to the origin of an ordinary building and extravagant and provocative outside due to application of deconstruction aesthetic principles.
The folded forms and the tectonic imitation as deconstructivist techniques used by Eisenman
Another good example of deconstructionist is Peter Eisenman, he is one of the most theoretically oriented deconstructionist architects. On a housing project near Checkpoint Charlie in Berlin, his project included more than the original assignment, a housing block next to the Berlin Wall. Eisenman wanted to raise an entire city block against the Wall that would incorporate the existing buildings in the new project. Around that block, an underground park was designed that was to be called the City of Excavations. By constructing a park below ground level the architect hoped to discover archaeological relics of the old city. Also at Eisenman – Emony Centre, folded forms were used for the first time. Strange about these forms, was the fact that, apart from effective dimensionality, they also possess an affective spatial dimension.
The folds used by the architect look like a landscape and can be associated with strata in the earth’s crust. Peter Eisenman is known for focusing on the theoretical framework of deconstructivism architecture aesthetics. “Eisenman’s deconstruction is a replanning and therefore reprogramming of architecture’s possibilities” (Rendell 46). Trying to break from the established architectural tradition, Eisenman develops an original technical instrument which entitled folding. The technique of folded forms has been implemented in his project of the Emory Centre for the Arts. The affective spatial dimension as the architect calls it produces the impression of geological landscapes upon the observers. Thus, the forms and the lines used in the construction are often compared to the layers of the earth’s crust.
Tectonic imitation by Zaha Hadid
The same technique was adopted by the most influential female deconstructivist architect Zaha Hadid. The imitation of the earth’s tectonic layers can be found in her Hong Kong project The Peak. Zaha Hadid is a well known female deconstructionist. In one of her projects, she simulates tectonics of earth layers using different materials. The result resembles earth’s crust burst open or an apocalyptic landscape after an earthquake. Hadid’s folding technique and tectonics reminds of a prehistoric landscape that must have been a motherland for Cro-Magnon man. This effect is produced through creating different layers of the construction as well as specific choice of forms and combination of lines. On the one hand, this tectonic imitation resembles the prehistoric landscapes. On the other hand, this panorama conveys another meaning for contemporary viewers, producing the effect of an apocalyptic landscape or the condition of the earth’s layers after the earthquake. The use of folded forms and the tectonic imitation which were used by Eisenman and Handid are recognized as deconstruction techniques which are aimed at replacing the regular geometrical forms with chaotic lines for exhibiting disharmony in the work of architecture.
Techniques implemented by Coop Himmelblau
Techniques of tectonics and folding are deconstructions of what Broadbent (calls “plate construction”. There is, however, another form of deconstruction that often gives rise to deconstructive architecture effects – or rather, affects – namely deconstruction of what Broadbent (ibid.) calls “frame construction”. These deconstructions burst the traditional geometric forms of the skeleton and replace them by chaotic, polygonal forms. Good illustrations of what could be called “frame deconstruction” can be found in the designs of the Austrian, Coop Himmelblau. In pure geometric forms of, say, the villa Savoye represent the human body in one way or another, then Himmelblau’s deconstructed geometry represents a mutilated, handicapped, fragmented body. Himmelblau’s model for the Malibu Open House project might clarify this point. By means of plate and frame deconstruction the Austrian group of architects designs a house that is reminiscent of an igloo or a wigwam. Of capital importance here is the fact that the building does not possess a facade; the front side of the house is completely open, revealing the interior.
Focusing on theoretical assumptions and practical application of the principles of anti-humanism, Himmelblau conducts bodily experiments in his architectural projects. As opposed to the traditional representation of body as a source of harmony and integrity, the deconstructivist architect considers it as a fragmented object and the cause of destruction and disintegration. Due to the fragmentation of the body forms, Himmelblau’s buildings look as injured animals. One of the vivid examples of architecture’s animals is Himmelblau’s remodelling of a rooftop in Vienna. The impressive explosion of the lines of the building’s roof demonstrates the opportunities opened up by the technique of frame deconstruction. The construction produces a threatening effect upon the observers. “It appears like the building’s intestines want to free themselves from the geometrical yoke of the old building” Masschelein and van der Straeten “The Uncanny and the Architecture of Deconstruction”).
The normal form of the roof was modified by the architect who added a construction which resembles an injured animal breaking through the corner of the building. Disregarding the contrast between this new element of the roof and the other parts of the building, this architecture’s animal became an integral part of it. It may seem that the animal had always been hiding inside of the building and only occasionally reached its surface and broke behind the corner, threatening the frightened observers. In this respect, the disharmony can happen to look harmonious with regard to its perception and readiness of ordinary observers and critics to introduce changes into the daily look of the city with the help of deconstruction aesthetic principles. Moreover, every detail contributes greatly to the originality of the image and its outstanding features that help to differentiate between this architectural project and other ones designed in the same style and using similar techniques.
Architecture’s animals in Libeskind’s project of Jewish Museum in Berlin
The body of Daniel Libeskind’s extension to the Jewish Museum in Berlin does not really lack limbs. However, it should be noted that the skin surrounding the body looks mutilated. The building has no clearly defined form, it looks like a straight line that is interrupted and changes direction at some points. Libeskind himself claims that such a form represents a deconstructed Cross of David. As a kind of compelling memory, the building tries to transfer feelings of disorientation and displacement to its public.
The outer walls of the building are made of enormous zinc plates that are at some points ripped open, as if they were scratched or scarred skins. This extension’s architecture expresses one of the most physically oriented types of the deconstructive architecture. Some corridors get increasingly narrow, while others simply come to a dead end. Some staircases, too, fail to fulfil their primary function and lead to a blind wall. In his design, Libeskind strongly emphasizes the museum’s historically preservative function. But not in the way traditional museum functions, which stores within its walls some cultural inheritance for posterity. Rather, the Berlin Jewish Museum should function as an active memory in everyday Berlin consciousness. Thus, the original construction of the Jewish museum conveys philosophical messages of preventing the tragedies of holocaust in future and preserving them in memory of people at the same time.
Emphasizing the historical aspect of architecture, the designer incorporated disharmony producing the impression of displacement and disorientation upon the public. Libeskind reached a compromise between the original design, symbolic meaning of the construction and the functionality of the building. Though some corridors end with blind walls and some staircases cannot fulfil their traditional functions, these designer’s decisions do not decrease the value of the building which is meant to store the historical relics and create the favourable conditions for visitors and museum employees. Realizing the idea of liberation in the project, Libeskind conveyed the symbolic meanings of Jews’ suffering and immigration. The effect of void and empty spaces within the building plays an important role in incorporating the concept of emptiness into the construction for expressing this idea on both physical and spiritual levels. After the visitors enter the museum, they have to choose between the three paths. The first of them leads to the actual exposition, the second path leads visitors to the so-called Holocaust void of the museum, while the third one leads nowhere and symbolizes the way of Jews’ emigration. Thus, the deconstructivist techniques allowed Libeskind to incorporate the symbolic elements into the building of the Jewish museum in Berlin.
Conclusion
Based on philosophical theories, deconstructivist architecture aesthetics was developed and reinterpreted by deconstructivist architects, including Peter Eisenman, Zaha Hadid, Coop Himmelblau, Bernard Tschumi, Frank Gehry, and others. The appropriateness of rectangular lines and ideal forms is questioned by the representatives of this style who conducted unexpected experiments with the constructions in their architectural projects. Making disharmony one of the central principles of their works, deconstructivist architects implemented the techniques of folded forms, the tectonic imitation and architecture’s animals for producing specific effect upon the observers and realizing their original ideas. Disregarding the criticism of the deconstructivist buildings for their eccentricity, most architects still managed to strike the balance between the originality of design and functionality of the building. Though the replacement of objects and irregular shapes can be considered rather simple contrasted to tectonic imitation and architectural animals, this technique can be considered one of the basic ones that make the buildings disharmonious with regard to the neighbourhood and harmonious in terms of implementation of materials to create new forms and images.
References
Masschelein, Anneleen and Bart van der Straeten. “The Uncanny and the Architecture of Deconstruction”. Online Magazine of the Visual Narrative. (2003): n. pag. Web.
Picon, Antoine and Alessandra Ponte. Architecture and the sciences: exchanging metaphors. New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 2003. Print.
Rendell, Jane, Jonathan Hill, Murray Fraser, and Mark Dorrian (eds.). Critical Architecture. New York: Routledge, 2007. Print.
Sebestyen, Gyula and Pollington, Chris. New Architecture and Technology. Burlington: Architectural Press, 2033. Print.