Deconstructivism is a movement of postmodern architecture which appeared in the

1980s, which gives the impression of the fragmentation of the constructed building. It is

characterized by an absence of harmony, continuity, or symmetry. Its name comes from

the idea of "Deconstruction", a form of semiotic analysis developed by the French

philosopher Jacques Derrida. Architects whose work is often described as

deconstructionism (though in many cases the architects themselves reject the label)

include Peter Eisenman, Frank Gehry, Zaha Hadid, Rem Koolhaas, Daniel Libeskind,

Bernard Tschumi, and Coop Himmelb(l)au.

Besides fragmentation, Deconstructivism often manipulates the structure's surface skin

and creates by non-rectilinear shapes which appear to distort and dislocate elements of

architecture. The finished visual appearance is characterized by unpredictability and

controlled chaos.

It is influenced by the theory of "Deconstruction".

It is characterized by fragmentation, and interest in manipulating a structure's

surface or skin through transform the basic Volumes of architecture (Cube, Cuboid,

Pyramid & sphere) in order to recombine it in a new hybrid shapes.

It is a development in POST-MODERNISM that started in late 1980s.

Deconstructivism rejected the postmodern acceptance of the historical

references, as well as the idea of ornament as an after-thought or decoration.

• It views architecture in bits and pieces.

• It has no visual logic.

• Buildings may appear to be made of abstract forms.

• 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 ideas were borrowed from

the French philosopher, Jacques Derrida. • Architects involved – – Zaha Hadid –

Bernhard Tschumi – Rem Koolhaas.

Deconstructivism attempts to move away from the supposedly constricting

'rules' of modernism such as:

came to public notice with the 1982 Parc de la Villette

architectural design competition, in particular the entry from Jacques Derrida and Peter

Eisenman[2] and the winning entry by Bernard Tschumi, as well as the Museum of

Modern Art’s 1988 Deconstructivist Architecture exhibition in New York, organized by

Philip Johnson and Mark Wigley. Tschumi stated that calling the work of these architects

a "movement" or a new "style" was out of context and showed a lack of understanding

of their ideas, and believed that Deconstructivism was simply a move against the

practice of Postmodernism, which he said involved "making doric temple forms out of

plywood.

Other influential exhibitions include the 1989 opening of the Wexner Center for the Arts

in Columbus, designed by Peter Eisenman. The New York exhibition has featured works

by Frank Gehry, Daniel Libeskind, Rem Koolhaas, Peter Eisenman, Zaha Hadid, Coop

Himmelb(l)au, and Bernard Tschumi. Since their exhibitions, some architects associated

with Deconstructivism have distanced themselves from it; nonetheless, the term has

stuck and has come to embrace a general trend within contemporary architecture.

to be notoriously

difficult. it’s fundamental to Derrida’s extraordinary view of the world that nothing has

much meaning anyway.

That’s why he struggles so hard not to communicate with us; he actually intends it

to be difficult for us to find out what he says, if he has anything to say at all!

Many attempts to explain or to analyze Deconstruction have been violently

rebutted on the grounds that such approaches violate the very nature of

Deconstruction.

Its proponents insist that "it cannot be described and stated as other positions can"

because it is a new form of logic that has superseded the old traditional logic in

which such analyses are couched.

Derrida tends to work not so much by initiating ideas as by reacting, forcibly, to

what others have written already.

In each case Derrida aims to refute thinkers with arguments derived from the

author’s own writings, to demonstrate -successfully in many cases- that the very

premises on which the authors base their cases will, if pursued to their logical

conclusions, defeat the original arguments.

Deconstruction, after all, is literally concerned -as Derrida insists- with written

texts. His attacks are especially focused on subjects such as:

Metaphysics

is the age-old search for “truth” and the“essence of being” that has been the center of

occidental Philosophy.

Derrida despises this search through the centuries for the ultimate truth, for the

reason of our existence & the idea that there should be some kind of "absolute

knowledge", "prime mover" or "God".

This is relevant to architecture in that, for Derrida, there is no"one best way", no

"International Style", no roots from which all architecture has grown. So there are

no received truths - Classical, Modernist or other.

at all -program, form or structure- is to demonstrate one's view that there

are no absolutes in architecture, that attempts, such as

Heidegger's (in philosophy) or Le Corbusier’s, Wright’s and others (in architecture)

to find such absolutes are doomed to failure.

in Structuralist predecessors is to write simply, directly, clearly and unambiguously,

Derrida is part of the Post-Structurelist movement that strongly reacted against the

clarity.

DE constructivist architecture is ambiguous as a DE constructivist text, whereas

clarity is what we see when analyzing Modern architecture, simplicity in

its structure, coherence in its programme.

analyzing the structure of our language -in believe that language is what allows us

to think- to unveil the structure of our thoughts and thus arrive at those "ultimate

truths".

“Syntagmatic / Associative” ,“Signifier /Signified” Saussure, like many others before

him, tended to think in pairs, or "binary oppositions".

The denial of meaning from Derrida was taken by Deconstructivist

architects and translated as an architecture of pure "syntax" without

any "semantic" meaning.

Eisenman's aim when designing most of his early buildings was this,he used

extremely pure, geometric "syntaxes" with no semantic references of the kind we

loosely call "meaning".

When it comes to Eisenman buildings, he creates a really disturbing spacing

completely dislocated and every time you don't know where you are, or at what

level you are, you never know.