Deconstructivist Theorists

Understanding the philosophy of Deconstruction is often difficult, as Jacques Derrida is not the most transparent author. In fact, most of his writing seems to be intentionally trying to confuse the audience. “Deconstructing the Kimbell” is fascinating because it removes a lot of the mystery and excessive intellectualism from the discussion of Deconstructivism. He presents four primary principles: différance, hierarchy reversal, marginality versus centrality, and iterability. It is strange that they are so separate, because they all seem to point toward the same goal. Différance seems to point toward the counterpoint of any object, the essential opposite of any object or concept to which its definition is inherently tied. The best example given of this is that presence does not make sense without the concept or expectation of absence. Since Deconstructivism is commonly related to breaking down preconceptions, it makes sense that this would be a central concept. It would not be strange to enter a space by Zaha Hadid with no walls perpendicular to the floor if this was not the expectation. Marginality versus centrality seems to be a specific case of hierarchy reversal. In general, this concept takes the différance and reverses the roles, thus obliterating the means of understanding. The marginality versus centrality seems to function on this principle, for in most Deconstructivist works, the roles of these two components are reversed. Iterability relates to the ability to repeat a building. This seemed to be the strangest concept. Most architects want to be viewed as original, and many will hardly give credit to obvious influences. The idea that Deconstructivism could be related to something such as iterability is difficult to grasp when almost every architect associated with the movement denies any involvement with this style. Iterability here refers to the repetition of elements not in a plagiarist sense, but in the same way that new words are not invented every time someone needs to craft a sentence.

Even more useful than the definitions was the running commentary, whereby the author provided constant opinion sections as to the success or failure of such a concept. One such opinion stood out. It is nonsensical to think that any single building could successfully deconstruct a city. For instance, the Disney Concert Hall does not really seem to affect the greater fabric of Los Angeles. Its affect on that neighborhood cannot be argued, but beyond that it is hard to believe that it deconstructs the city. Michael Benedikt expressed the reason behind such a discrepancy well: “We are troubled, because to deconstruct the city (as though one could!) by building a little building that ignores, challenges, or creatively misrepresents its surroundings is too easy by far. One might as well deconstruct an elephant with a flea, or Plato with a paragraph.” The difference in scale is simply too great. This is one of the greatest problems with Deconstructivist architecture: it claims to accomplish these types of goals not on its immediate surroundings but for a whole city. Especially in a city that takes over an hour to drive across, even without traffic, a building on one end would not make much of a statement as to the stereotypical framework and assumptions of the other end. In a small farm town, a building like the Disney Concert Hall, granting that it could be built in the first place, would have an overwhelming affect and would clearly shatter any notions as to the nature of the town. The unsuspecting visitor driving along a country road from town to town would be suddenly shocked by such a grand, radical structure in the middle of nowhere. Since this scenario is unlikely, the chance of changing an entire city is slim to none.

Bernard Tschumi, Colin Rowe, and Fred Koetter had disparate views of the means through which these ideas could be carried out. Tschumi was convinced that disjunction was the only way to create this new architecture. Disjunction favors dissociation and rejection of traditional methods of design. He set forth this idea as a means of creating dynamism: “Emphasis placed, as a method, on dissociation, superposition, and combination, which trigger dynamic forces that expand into the whole architectural system, exploding its limits while suggesting a new definition.” This article is more a personal statement about how this particular architect accomplishes these goals. While it is a valid method, it is certainly not the only method. Rowe and Koetter are more focused on eliminating the dichotomy between traditional and Utopian architecture in the modern city. The idea is that Utopia is impossible and tradition is grounding, so the combination of the two will result in a satisfying urban environment. Rome is their obvious example, as this is one of the better examples of a combination of historical and modern styles. This does not seem to prove their theories; little of the evidence proves that their methods caused the results. These authors quickly slide back into the typical means of discussing Deconstructivism, where obfuscation is more typical than clarification. The theory reads like it was written to impress, not to convince. Thus, the ideas suffer, and it is hard to gain enough understanding to determine the merit behind these comments.