Jump to content

Talk:Deconstructivism/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Some thoughts

Deconstructivism in architecture also has a purely geometric origination that has no relation to literary deconstruction. This really should be qualified since some deconstructivists are inspired primarily by other deconstructivist architects and their work.

Deconstructivist designs go against ordered rationality, but are not bound by traditional forms or ornament as so may be considered modern.

Many geometric concepts come up. Fragmentation is a pervasive theme. Nonlinear or chaotic elements are more common than any non-Euclidean or other formal mathematical construction.

In addition to critics not seeing the social significance of deconstructivism, fragmented designs may be more expensive to construct than simple forms in terms of cost, amount of material required, and the amount of on site labor required for assembly.

Regarding the list of practitioners it would be nice to make some relation to Futurism and Rationalism and perhaps most important to the Constructivists and Suprematists who produced bold new forms with recognizable elements of Deconstructivism. -- M0llusk 00:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC)


Jombob Merger

Is Jombob even a real style? Should that page rather be deleted? -- 206.116.101.138 07:31, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Clearly a hoax. Delete. --Shannonr 00:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Copyvio

Feel much happier about a total re-write now.

Templates

Does this article need both Archhistory and Postmodernism templates? It seems redundant to me with both. DVD+ R/W 20:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Images

Some ideas for additional images:

DVD+ R/W 22:17, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Nice. Yeah go for it. do you have any experience in arranging pages - it's all looking a bit thrown together at the moment, would be great if you could have a look. Are there any images in the 'commons' of Gehry's bilbao? - it's probably the most recognisable decon building for the general reader despite Gehry's denial of his decon credentials. There's a great quote somewhere of Gehry about Eisenman that's something along the lines of "The thing is about Eisenmans' work is all of the philosophy stuff just sounds like bullshit, but his strength is in the great mashed-up spaces he creates". If I can source it, do you think that might be an interesting and relevant quote to include to illustrate the anti-pigeonholing anti-intellectual stance a lot of these guys and gals seem to be taking about deconstructivism. Actually thinking about it now, maybe this stance is a rebuttal to the criticsms of elitism they have attracted.? --Mcginnly 22:25, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

  • I am going to add these images, but replace the template archistory to make room. Also, the ja: page uses an image of Gehry's Bilbao very well, we could probably use that image similarly.
  • Loving it. is there any of hadid's drawings as public domain? she was painting forms with a distorted almost computer like, stretching of perspective before most computers were up to the job. would be a nice inclusion, look good too. black backgrounds and primary colour forms....--Mcginnly 22:42, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Things to Check out

I think Tschumi did the park de la villette, not eisenman. I'm sure eisenman worked with derrida but can't remember what on. will have to check. Haven't got the choral works - have you? Tschumi's park is an example of the contructivist strain I think not derridean. --Mcginnly 23:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Tschumi built follies at Park de la Villette. Eisenman collaborated with Derrida on an unbuilt project for Park de la Villette, which is documented in Chora l Works. (Tschumi may have introduced them though). I believe there were other competition entries for other projects at P d l V as well. DVD+ R/W 03:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Apologies --Mcginnly 07:09, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
    • No problem, I've enjoyed collaborating on this. Tomorrow, I will add another section on Oppositions and the deconstructivist break from post modernism. I'll also try to add more to the other sections, and move the practitioners section into the exhibition section, as the exhibition catalogues them. Feel free to contribute more writing to the main page. And after this is all a little further along we should send it to peer review. Then maybe take on something else. DVD+ R/W 07:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Definition

Think there's might be a bit of a definition problem here which the article should perhaps address. My understanding is that, although all the architects listed were displayed at the famous Moma show, there are 2 distinct strains of Deconstructivism in architecture.

  1. The first is, as mentioned in the article, Architectural ideas inspired by Jacque Derrida - those architects (including Eisenmann) are thought of as belonging to this strain.
  2. The Second are those architects who have been influenced by the Russian Constructivist movement and so are de-constructing (Hadid etc).

Many of the architects listed as deconstructivist actually deny being so. --Mcginnly 13:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Follows below are some cut and pastes from an essay I wrote on Libeskind Imperial war museum which we can perhaps make use of or at least use as a basis for discussion.

According to Derrida, readings of texts are best carried out when working with classical narrative structures. Any architectural deconstruction then would imply the existence of particular archetypes. Gehry’s house has been cited as such a deconstruction because he takes an ordinary (archetypical) suburban house and then deconstructs and subverts its inherent nature to reveal something different.

We could argue that the archetype in question in the IWMN is the globe. Which is then deconstructed to reveal the void within this concept or as Libeskind writes:

This project develops the realm of the in between, the inter-est………Pointing to that which is absent - libeskind quote on IWMN [1]

Criticism of deconstructivism abounds in every discipline that it touches. I believe that the main two thrusts are firstly, that deconstructors believe a text (or architecture) means nothing insofar as it means whatever the playful reader wants it to mean i.e. It becomes open to deliberate misinterpretation rather than the results being the product of academic rigour. Secondly, there are moral and ethical objections. Deconstructivism/Post-structuralists theories according to Eisenman attempt to free architecture from the ‘repressions’ of the metaphysic of architecture, being shelter, structure, use, durability, order, beauty and meaning. Clearly the removal or significant distortion of these elements lead out of the realms of theory and into other peoples realities. The debate concerning the battleground, where pure theoretical architecture as an artistic expression, collides with the more practical aspects of building is brought into sharp relief.

During the 1980’s certain architects’ work began to emerge

Not only Coop Himmelblau, but also Bernard Tschumi, Peter Eisenman and a bunch of other expressed both in their programmatic texts and in their building projects the need for an architecture of “discomfort and the unbalancing of expectations” (Tschumi 1977:214). Some members of this new generation, especially Tschumi and Eisenman, explicitly drew on Derrida’s philosophy and worked together with him in specific projects, as Tschumi did for his design of Parc de le Villette in Paris. Others, like Frank Gehry and Coop Himmelblau, minimised or denied the link with the French thinker of deconstruction. Broadbent (1991:80) therefore distinguishes between Derridean and non-Derridean deconstruction. Bart Van der Straeten - Image and Narrative – The Uncanny and the architecture of Deconstruction:

The seminal exhibition of this work occurred at the opening of “Deconstructivist Architecture” at MOMA in 1988. Curated by Philip Johnson and Mark Wigley, here I think, the waters start to get rather muddy, with Wigley in his essay in the catalogue arguing that the architects work being displayed - disrupted, dislocated, deflected etc. and so picked up the baton dropped by early work of the Russian constructivists hence De-constructivists. To quote Wigley from Kenneth Frampton:

…the form is distorting itself. Yet this internal distortion does not destroy the form. In a strange way, the form remains intact. This is an architecture of disruption, dislocation, deflection, deviation and distortion, rather than one of demolition, dismantling, decay, decomposition and disintegration. It displaces structure instead of destroying it. What is finally so unsettling about such is precisely that the form not only survives its torture but appears all the stronger for it. Perhaps the form is even produced by it. It becomes unclear which came first, the form or the distortion, the host or the parasite…..No surgical technique can free the form, no clean incision can be made. To remove the parasite would be to kill the host. They comprise one symbiotic entity. Modern Architecture - Third Edition - p313 - Kenneth Frampton

It is this disruption, dislocation and deflection that is perhaps most relevant IWMN. To me, clearly significant disruptions and morphings have occurred in as the concept reassembles its shattered globe, The disruptions however look from within less like a reassembly is in progress as would be suggested by the concept and more like the chaos is about to become more pronounced as the entropic system moves from order to disorder.

This chronological entropy is evident in other works. Wigley writes of Libeskind’s city edge project:

The symbolic breakdown of the wall effected by introducing the Constructivist motifs of tilted and crossed bars sets up a subversion of the walls that define the bar itself. ……This apparent chaos actually constructs the walls that define the bar; it is the structure. The internal disorder produces the bar while splitting it even as gashes open up along its length. Deconstructive architecture - 1988 - p34 - Phillip Johnson and Mark Wigley.
What project, by what architect is being described here? I would like to move this quote to the article space, under deconstructivism and constructivism. DVD+ R/W 19:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Jencks sees Libeskind as being one of a few promising architects he hopes will fulfil his desire to see:

…a shift in architecture that: relates to a deep transformation going on in the sciences – in time, permeates all other aspects of life. The new sciences of complexity – fractals, nonlinear dynamics, the new cosmology, self-organising systems – have brought about the change in perspective. We have moved from a mechanistic view of the universe to one that is self-organising at all levels, from the atom to the galaxy…….I believe it is the job of architects to take responsibility for the public and esoteric meanings of a civic building, but this is an especially difficult task in a global culture with out a shared value system……..Perhaps the only architect of the new paradigm who admits to both larger spiritual concerns and a public symbolism is Daniel Libeskind. His imperial war museum north, outside Manchester, explicitly symbolizes the various kinds of war as well as a globe shattered by strife Charles Jencks Website

--Mcginnly 13:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC) --Mcginnly 00:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I think this is very interesting and could be added into ... somewhere. Perhaps the inclusion of this text would unbalance the whole article, but the heck with it. More information never killed anyone. The most interesting part about your quotation of Frampton is the fact that the host-and-parasite dependence seems to me in fact an Image of Man, as perhaps they (the architects) see him. Dependent of the parasite of his own culture and genes. Locked up to his own imperfection. To kill imperfection in man would be to kill man itself. So it is intertwined... well just a thought and surely NOT to include here. Good job, Mcginnly.

Deconstructivism and the arts

We have mentioned the relationship to constructivism, but there is also an influence of cubism in many decon. projects, especially in Frank Gehry. This should be written in at some point. We also should write in something on Gordon Matta-Clark. Are there any other sculptors or painters that are considered deconstructivist? DVD+ R/W 23:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Rachel Whiteread might also be exploring the "in-between", see her concrete pouring into a terraced house and then the demolition of the house.--Mcginnly 07:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC) On second thoughts I think she's more into ideas of memory and reversal of space rather than any decon notions, what's the concensus?
  • I have a book called Perfect Acts of Architecture which is based on another exhibition that also came to MOMA in 2001/2 It's written by Jeffery Kipnis and a preface by Terence Riley. It features quite a bit of early work from Rem Koolhas, Peter Eisenman, Bernard Tschumi, Daniel Libeskind (Micromegas - great!) and chamber works. Finally it displays drawings of an unbuilt work by Thom Mayne with Andrew Zago on an unbuilt project for his 'Sixth Street House' - We haven't mentioned him yet.--Mcginnly 00:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Article name

I am thinking that perhaps the name of this article is not enough for some people to find it in their Web search engines. Maybe we should create Deconstruction (architecture) as an article, and turn it into a redirect to this deconstructivism article? Or maybe we should do this the other way around, and turn the Deconstructivism article into a redirect to a newly created Deconstruction (architecture). Thoughts? RK 19:38, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Deconstructivism is a central conceptual framework much like Modernism. The philosophical context has a lot to do with the architecture, but there is more to it. Deconstructivism is about what man is trying to achieve, with order being present only in terms of function and not form. Deconstruction is an aspect of forms motivated by Deconstructivism. There do seem to be other examples in fashion and design. -- M0llusk 03:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
I've made a dab link here at the head of Deconstruction; no one should get lost now. --Wetman 22:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Non-Euclidean Geometry

How exactly do deconstructivist architects implement non-Euclidean geometry in their buildings? — Trilobite (Talk) 03:32, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I wondered about that myself. I don't know much about non-Euclidean geometry, but I don't think it's present in this architecture. Deconstructivists often reject commonly-held notions such as parallel lines and right angles, but that doesn't constitute non-Euclidean geometry. --- PhifeAlQuest

This may be a reference to an illusion. One of the more commonly noted features of non-Euclidean geometries is the possibility that parallel lines might intersect. Some unusual geometric possibilities in deconstructivist volumes may appear to demonstrate this or other oddities that are simply not conceivable in normal space. This would be similar M. C. Escher's drawings of infinite staircases or other illusions some of which have been made into sculptures. M0llusk 01:07, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Then it's the illusion of non-Euclidean geometry that's suggested. Wouldn't irrational geometry be prefereable? -Wetman 22:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

~

I don't think so. Non-Euclidean geometry is fair enough, as it best describes most of their geometries and inspirations. For more info on this, google non euclidean geometries. Zaha Hadid for example makes a lot of use of non-euclidean geometries, and Peter Eisenmann "deconstructs" Euclidean geometry, as if denying it. Despite so, we must remember that non-euclidean geometries are not impossible geometries in our world, it is just another form of regarding shapes and forms (example: Earth is a sphere, and its surface is not an euclidean geometry).

What could be said is that there are also non-linear and chaotic geometries in their work, and thus this could be added.

Where have practitioners gone?

After the edit 'Moved practitioners to participants in exhibition' - where did the practitioners go - I can't seem to find a link or am I missing something?--Mcginnly 23:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

  • I've made many small edits without meaning to change content, in search of stronger verbs, fewer verbalisms, tighter construction, some dates and asides to guide the reader. Some statements need to be expanded in order to convey their implied content. --Wetman 22:30, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Again I've made many small edits in the interests of fluency and economical language; but if I've inadvertently changed the nuances of any sentence treating an aspect you're familiar with, do continue to re-edit! Two dates are essential for meaning: I marked them "(date)". Purely an editor, Wetman 18:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Many thanks for your edits they've really improved the way the article scans. I've added the dates you suggested and restored Expressionist architecture and contemporary art references in the header paragraph.--Mcginnly 08:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Confusing sentence in lead

What does "(especially the entry from Jacques Derrida and Peter Eisenman[2] and Bernard Tschumi's winning entry)" mean? Were there three entries? Were there two, one by Derrida and Eisenman and another that won? Could someone reword this for clarity (and grammar, assuming there was more than one entry)? Jkelly 01:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

An earlier version of this passage was: Important events in the history of the deconstructivist movement include the many projects for the 1982 Parc de la Villette architectural design competition, such as the collaboration of Jacques Derrida and Peter Eisenman;[2]and the selected final project by Bernard Tschumi. Other major events were the 1988 Museum of Modern Art Deconstructivist architecture exhibition organized by Philip Johnson and Mark Wigley in New York; and the 1989 opening of the Wexner Center for the Arts, Columbus, Ohio, designed by Peter Eisenman. Is this clearer and more grammatically correct? DVD+ R/W 02:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

"Postmodern" capitalised

Should "Postmodern" have a capital "P" as shown at the moment in the first sentence? It's not obvious to me why it should. --81.156.162.22 03:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

This is unfortunate

While this article was at FAC, I noted down a lot of scope of improvements for this article. Realizing that they were all objectionable concerns, I placed them under Comments, rather than Oppose. However, it was unfortunate to find that none of the editors took interest in improving the article based on the suggestions. The article was promoted as FA just a few days after my comments. I thought that the editors would slowly take note of them and improve the article. However, it looks like they kept process (getting FA status) over ends (writing excellent article). Today I see that the same article is appearing on the Main Page with all the problems I had noted. If any editor ever feels that then ends are more important than process, you may use my observations below that I am copying from the FAC page.

  • These were my observations:
    • Article has only two major sections (leaving "See also", etc.). This looks awkward and I suggest that the sub-sections of "History, context & influences" can be made full-fledged sections.
    • The sentence in the lead: "It is characterised by ideas of fragmentation, non-linear processes of design, an interest in manipulating ideas of a structure's surface or skin, and apparent non-Euclidean geometry, which serve to distort and dislocate some of the elements of architecture, such as structure and envelope." should be broken into multiple sentences. More importantly, it is unclear whether the italized part (done by me) is a qualifier for non-linear processes of design or a separate characteristic altogether.
    • In the last sentence of the first paragraph, use some alternative for "stimulating" as it looks like passing a judgement on the subject.
    • In the last paragraph of the lead in "Deconstructivist architecture exhibition", italics should include "exhibition".
    • It is unclear why postmodernism's return to "historical trappings" are sly and ironic.
    • "With its publication, functionalism and rationalism, the two main branches of modernism, were overturned as paradigms according to postmoderist and deconstructivist readings, with differing readings." - confusing.
    • "Rather than Separating ornament and..." - why is the "S" capital?
    • If possible, try to get at least stub articles on the red-links mentioned in the article.
    • Wikilink of "Grid" leads to disambiguation page. Fix it. Same with "Locus". Find others and fix.
    • "...own Santa Monica residence, (from 1978), has been". Use either braces or commas. Not both.
    • What is "erasure"? Provide context (or link to definition).
    • "Lin's 1982 project for the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, with its granite slabs severing the ground plane, is one." Ending looks abrupt. Copyedit for better flow.
    • "1988 MOMA exhibition" does not justify being a separate paragraph as its seems of very less significance as the other broad topics. Either make it stand out or merge with some other.
    • In the same section, the quote and the image overlap in 800x600 screen resolution. Fix it.
    • The sentences in "Computer-aided design" need to be re-ordered/re-organized so that context is present in the beginning, and not in the middle.
    • Provide link or context to "exigence".
    • "The two aspects of the critical, exigence and analysis are found in deconstructivism." I think the word "regionalism" is missing after "critical".
    • "The Wexner Center brings vital topics such as function and precedent to prominence and displays their urgency in architectural discourse, in an analytical and critical way." How?
    • Make sure that reference links are after punctuation marks, not before. At many places, a space is missing after the reference link.
    • "Critics of Deconstruction see...". Why is "of" capitalized?
  • — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 05:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


I have seen FAs with vandalism, but none with legitimate clean-up tags. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 08:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Criticism

I'd like a bit of a debate about the second paragraph of Criticism because whilst it makes some interesting points I think it could do with a bit more rigour.

  1. Deconstructivist designs may involve complexity that can increase the costs of design, materials, and final on site assembly. Roccoco, Baroque, classical, gothic, neo-xyz, expressionism etc.etc.etc all involved complexity that increased the costs of design from just the functional box. But that might have been the point, perhaps we are showing our affluence and technical prowess in such constructions. Perhaps one of architectures goals is to reflect the societies which make it. Some of the best modernism wasn't exactly cheap. Is the chapel at Ronchamp the optimum solution for the minimum budget, or the optimum solution for the expression of form in light and so the contemplation of god?
  1. Increasing costs for primarily aesthetic reasons may be impractical in some cases depending on development goals. not sure I understand. Isn't this an argument better framed as architecture vs. construction/engineering? and so not as relevant to deconstructivsm alone. Also Libeskind managed to construct the imperial war museum north even when his budget was slashed in half by using different materials. His strength of concept however was strong enough to sustain the concept, just constructed out of different materials.
  1. In contrast, low costs for design, materials, and assembly have increased the popularity of Modernism. I don't think it's just low cost that has increased the popularity of modernism, it took a very long time to catch on and overcome a lot of conservatism and societies have changed and in any event I reject the idea that modernism is just about low cost design, low cost materials and low cost assembly. See Hong Kong and Shanghai bank, Scottish Parliament, etc.etc. Really concerned that this is starting to sound like it doesn't have a neutral point of view but is just advocating rationalism over art.--Mcginnly 19:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

All good points, I can't debate or argue with any of them. One thing though. I added a citation needed tag for the Kenneth Frampton paraphrase. This might be a good place for a quotation. We should also work in more from your essay (definitions section above) into the main page, and not let the criticism take up too much of the article. DVD+ R/W 19:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I removed this passage by user:64.75.187.197 from the article space:

Many people also do not see beauty in deconstructivist buildings, instead seeing strange blocky irregularities which seem like they don't belong. Waste is also associated with it because of the amounts of resources and money that goes into deconstructivist buildings and this sense of waste is vastly magnified if people do not find it aesthetically pleasing.
  • I don't think this argument is particular to deconstructivism and since it could be applied to everything is not specific enough for the article. Not everyone sees beauty in Classicism, Modernism, Home Depot McMansions or any other manner of building either, and as such they seem like they don't belong and seem like a waste to those opposed. DVD+ R/W 23:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree, but I think it should be included if there is citeable specific criticism. For example, I recall that the new MIT building received considerable criticism in the local and university press, so it would be relevant to include something of that public reaction. --Delirium 10:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Featured article wtf?

Anyone, go read the section "Modernism and postmodernism" and explain to me how this became a featured article. Shoehorn 02:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The standards for Feature Article are not all that high. This is actually a pretty good one.--Chris 02:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I think I agree with shoehorn (assuming the legitemacy of this article is contested). Deconstructivism is not a thing, and as such, does not deserve to be defined as one in this encyclopedia. It is a made-up excuse for nihlism, anarchy, chaos, and apathy perpetrated by architects. Any human of good sense will get a headache after paddling through the paradoxes, vaguities, and completely unsubstantive literary constructs contained in this article. corten10 05:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Good grief, how on earth did an article with a "To meet Wikipedia's quality standards, this article or section may require cleanup" tag in it end up as a featured article? If it's not good enough to meet Wikipedia's quality standards, it has no business as a featured article. --Kurt 12:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Congrats on FA status

This article is very informative and interesting to me. This form of architecture is fascinating to me.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 13:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

That's not what it looks like in the real world

The photos of this sort of junk that are used for promotion by its advocates were always taken when the building was new and clean and in ideal weather conditions. The reality is that these buildings get grimy and look awful. A case in point is Daniel Libeskind's squat and horrible extension to London London Metropolitan University, which I have the misfortune to walk past quite often. Chicheley 00:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

If you want to take some present-day photographs and upload them to Commons, I'm sure we could find a way to use them. --Delirium 10:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Photos in the article of the Imperial War Museum North were taken in June 2004 - 2 years after it's construction - it still looks pretty good - but then it's next to a canal not a busy London Road. I'd be interested to see present-day pics of the London Metropolitan University as per Deliriums suggestion.--Mcginnly 10:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Well as it happens, the same photographer has some even better pictures of Libeskind's London Metropolitan University Graduate Centre which I took a couple of months ago. Perhaps I will get around to uploading some. Contrary to what User:Chicheley says, I personally think it looks great from the outside, although in truth it is still pretty new. A more valid criticism would be whether it makes good use of the space available on the plot. Judging from the pictures of the interior on Libeskind's web site, it looks a bit cramped with little natural lighting. On the other hand, the unusual interior shapes seem to work in favour of the Imperial War Museum North: I found the gently curved floor of the main exhibition space quite stimulating and the lack of natural lighting plays into the hands of the sound and light show that runs every other hour. -- Solipsist 18:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

lack of Asian content

The article as it currently stands seems to be exclusively Euro-American, even though much experimentation in architecture that has been termed "deconstructivism" at least by some took place in Asia. For example, Kenzo Tange is a well-known Japanese architect who comes at what is arguably deconstructivist architecture from a more modernist starting point. --Delirium 09:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

This is vague, but there is a specific building in Japan, possibly in Tokyo, which was intentionally designed with a striking deconstructivist exterior that evokes shaking and has been unofficially named "the earthquake building" by locals. That building might make a particularly good example to include. I'll look for a more detailed reference and add more info if I can find it. -- M0llusk 22:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Constructivist?

I don't understand from this article why the Constructivist movement has to do with geometric imbalances instead of unfinished ceilings.--Chuck Marean 23:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

One "L"

"Our" Philip Johnson's name has one "l". The other fellow is a tedious Creationist.Rt3368 23:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't call either of them my kind of people. At least the two-L Phillip was never Nazi supporter (as far as I know!).--Chris 04:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure he was "my kind of person" either, but he was the present article's kind of person. And while often kranky, not a tedious krank.Rt3368 07:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Deconstructivism lacks pragmatism

I find it kind of extreme that this criticism was deleted entirely without being more fleshed out. Let us please take this issue seriously and see if there is something here that is worth publishing. This is very serious because style is not just style but has a range of social and economic implications that are essential to full understanding. What issues relate to adoption of any particular style are important context.

Deconstructivist designs may add expense for all aspects of construction including design, materials, and assembly. Adding complex geometric features may require special artists and extended time frames. Fragmented structures and flying columns are demonstrably less efficient in a strictly economic sense and may require custom components. These unusual constructions typically require additional work on site, and deconstructivist designs are notorious for requiring innovations on site just to be built. Peter Eisanman's Wexner Center for the Visual Arts at Ohio State University is an example of this, and the costs associated with constructing unusual forms in that case were significant.

Realistically Deconstructivism is not primarily competing with Rococco, Baroque, Classical, Gothic, but modern styles such as Modernism, Minimalism, and the International Style. While modern buildings can be made expensive, minimal modern constructions are well known to be in general much cheaper than traditional highly ornamental forms.

Specific examples will help flesh this out, but it seems obvious that cost is a factor in most construction.

Increasing costs may conflict with development goals.

The best example I can think of is Peter Eisenman's 1989 proposal for the Pittsburgh Technology Center offices. This was a very forward looking deconstructivist design that was sought out, but turned out to be too expensive to build. Instead a much less interesting modern building with less geometric complexity and more standard components was built. This kind of thing is not purely a matter of style, but the economics of the value of style.

There should be some way to note this reality. Deconstructivist designs are currently associated with primium cost and this is limiting adoption of the form, in particular relative to popular modern forms that tend to be minimal in geometric complexity and lacking ornament.

This is a mix of the original idea and some of the criticism. Surely there must be some way that concepts here can be worked into the criticism section. Probably it would be good to get other various examples so as not to pick on Peter Eisenman too much. This is a common issue with Deconstructivist designs that they tend to cost more to make a point and that brings up a whole range of issues related to balance of cost and benefit, adoption of this form, and elitism. -- M0llusk 19:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

  • I apologise if I caused any offence by being bold and deleting the cost criticisms, I did genuinely want to debate the issue, but it was late at night, I was tired...... sorry. I have restored and re-written them to an extent, in a way that I think distils your arguments. We really need some citations though to back this up and also some examples of deconstructivists coming unstuck on tight budgets.

I've taken out the statement that there is an increase in material costs because I'm really not convinced that is the case (Gehry's chain link fence aesthetic, Libeskinds use of aluminium on IWMN was part of a major cost cuttin exercise, gehry reputedly chose titanium for the guggenheim because steel prices were particularly cheap at the time of purchase.)

I've also removed the last sentence because of my concerns that it doesn't reflect a neutral point of view.

My personal view is that deconstructivism will never be a 'movement' in the sense that modernism was. At the same time, modernism just isn't what it was either. The times are much more eclectic and probably all the better for it. On the one hand, commercial interests have co-opted the 'style' of modernism without any of the social concerns (becuase society has largely changed it's opinions in that regard) and so the capital A Architects have busied themselves developing individualistic styles of their own (Where is Will Alsop in all this?). It suits career academics to lump these trends together under a new 'ism'. It sells books. But how useful this category proves to be, remains to be seen. Architectural fashion may be about to become as transient as many other fashions in our society. Meanwhile modernism is being sold left right and centre to the public in the UK on every DIY and home improvement program and the success of the likes of 'Habitat' and 'Ikea' have softened the negative connotations of modernism. But a modern 'style' is not modernism as I understand it. It runs deeper than just clean lines, swanky lighting, wipe clean surfaces and affordable shelving (althought admittedly the bauhaus would be proud). So perhaps we can view deconstrucivism not as a development of modernism, with it's goals of using mass production to provide cheap affordable art and architecture to the masses, but a return to the more crafted art object which modernism rejected as much as it did historicism. Anyway I'm rambling, just a thought, I don't really pretend to have a cogent thesis on all this but enjoy the angles.--Mcginnly 21:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

    • lol, as if any of those where cheap architects!!! Souto de Moura has made one of the most expensive stadiums of Euro2004 cup, and all their work... doesn't seem "cheap" to me. Just "simple" (not as simplistic).

Confusion

This article has been identified as one of the best written articles, yet the language is often confusing and the ideas do not make sense. The only idea I can comprehend from reading this article is that nearly all deconstructivist buildings are monstrosities.

These are my particular concerns:

It is characterized by ideas of fragmentation, non-linear processes of design, an interest in manipulating ideas of a structure's surface or skin, and apparent non-Euclidean geometry

What does non-linear mean in this context? Presumably this alludes to the mathematical idea of non-linearity, but how does this translate to architechture? How does the reference explain this?

  • I've fixed the link from non-linear mathematics to Nonlinear (arts) - It simply refers to the process of design being non-linear (that multiple architectural elements might be designed at different or the same times and then brought together).

One contributor coined a new noun "problematics" for this article — there is no reference to it in my dictionary. Does problematics mean "problems", "difficulties", or "paradoxes"? Surely an actual word can be used instead.

  • It might not be in your dictionary, but it appears to be in use:-[3][4]

Both Derrida and Eisenman believe that the locus, or place of presence, is architecture, and the same dialectic of presence and absence is found in construction and deconstruction.

What does this even mean? Something constitutes absence, whereas architecture is presence? Is the chair in this room also presence? Amusingly the reference is to a book with perforated pages — according to Amazon reviewers.

  • I refer you to Gehry's (footnote) comment about "The great thing about Peter's [eisenman] work is the insane spaces he ends up with - all the philosophy stuff is just bullshit as far as I'm concerned." I also refer you to the work of Derrida. Articles must use summary style and this is not the place for a full discourse on Deconstruction.

What are classical narrative structures? Does this just mean a classical arhitectural theme?

  • No Deconstructivism takes (in part) a philosophical idea which sought to deconstruct literature (classical narrative structures) to reveal new meaning and applies it in parallel to architecture.

What does the verb deconstruct mean? I read once that Derrida rejected this verb.

Perhaps this might help - from the lead of Deconstruction - One way of understanding the term is that it involves discovering, recognizing, and understanding the underlying — and unspoken and implicit — assumptions, ideas, and frameworks that form the basis for thought and belief.--Mcginnly | Natter 17:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Rintrah 14:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Peter Cook & "New Spirit" AR issue

There should be something in this about Peter Cook and the legacy of Archigram both of which had through the former's teaching in London's Architectural Association on the the development of the movement (in as much as it was/is a defined movement).

Also a number of the prominent figures (Hadid, Koolhas, Tschumi etc) were either students, teachers or sometimes both at the AA.

Also Cook edited an issue of the Architectural Review called "New Spirit" which highlighted many of the same themes and emerging architects as the MOMA exhibition a year or so before it. --Gramscis cousin 18:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Das Wolkenbügel?

The definite article is most certainly not "das", but "der". Or, if you're not sure, use "the", which is what pretty much everybody else uses. – Even though I've seen this odd translation of "iron" for "bügel" before, I doubt it's what Lissitzky meant. Rl 07:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Please use English for understanding of global audience. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 08:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
If you are referring to my own comment: "Bügel" is used for all kinds of things with an angular shape: the temples of glasses (Brillenbügel), clothes hanger (Kleiderbügel), stirrup (Steigbügel), flat iron (Bügeleisen, due to the shape of the handle), and many angular shaped thingies used in construction. The building doesn't provide the context to pick a good translation. Rl 10:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
How about sky-hook?--Mcginnly 11:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
If there's no official/accepted translation, then IMO we should use the German name and then mention something like "(possible translation: sky-hook)" in parentheses. --Delirium 13:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't find an official translation, but I found four translations on the web: sky iron, sky hook, cloud hanger, and cloud stirrup(!). I like "cloud hanger" best because it's in the same playful spirit as the original term and it translates the unambiguous word literally (Wolke = cloud, not sky). Rl 18:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

  • The sky/cloud problem with translation is because Lissitsky undoubtedly invented the word "Wolkenbügel" by comparison with the German word for a great American invention, the skyscraper, or Wolkenkratzer. The word literally means cloud-scratcher, and justifies the translation of Wolkenbügel as Sky-hook!Fixifex 03:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The beginning

I took the liberty to slightly rearrange the beginning and tighten it up a bit - and add language that is more historically precise.Brosi 01:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Deconstructivism-Decon

Despite the close link between Derrida and Eisenman, the two, in a public lecture, agreed that they understood little of the other. Perhaps one has to see what the architects do as "operative deconstructivism" to borrow a type of Tafuri phraseology. The descriptions of the buildings are often a bit trendy. Take the following:

"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. " Therei s no indication of what "deconstructus it" means. Don't get me wrong. I understand what the author is trying to say, but is this tautology really the best way?Brosi 23:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

You'll have to educate me as to what a Tafuri phraseology might be. As to the vitra paragraph User:DVD R W wrote it I think, but i'd imagine it refers to the first paragraph in the section "Deconstruction took a confrontational stance toward much of architecture and architectural history, wanting to disjoin and disassemble architecture" (using geometries reminiscent of cubism and abstract expressionism). Edit as you see fit regarding trendiness I'm all for making a largely baffling subject more lucid. Actually, while I'm here i've been meaning to add to the 'criticism' section...... --Mcginnly | Natter 05:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Ah! I found Manfredo Tafuri - never on my reading lists..........off to amazon I go.......--Mcginnly | Natter 05:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Mostly Admirable, Except for the Math and so on

This is an interesting article with much information and little repetition. It is richly and usefully interlinked. It's engrossing and attractive; it's a good refresher for a person like me with a humble layman's interest in modern architecture, especially for anyone with a gloss of knowledge on the subject up to the controversy about the "postmodern" Philip Johnson AT&T/SONY building, and subsequently the Gehry Guggenheim Bilbao (essentially, the "Charlie Rose" level of knowledge).

I see these problems:

  1. Outside the world of architecture and architectural criticism, the word "deconstructive" (as distinct from "deconstructivist") is an adjective of much wider scope in critical theory; it seems to me that the first paragraph should alert the reader that "deconstructivist" refers to a modern architectural idea closely related to "deconstruction," "deconstructive" and so on but that it is a label related to but distinct from these others, with a de facto semantical claim in the field of architecture.
  2. The topic of computer-aided design is currently well dealt with in a succinct separate section; however, along with a mention of the technological advances in materials, construction technology and prefabrication techniques (computer-aided manufacture), I think this paragraph ought to be near the top of the article- or in the lead paragraph. I think that these technologies together are the innovations that have enabled the acceleration of the acceptance of this aesthetic beyond the vision of pre-CAD/CAM designs in this style. The point is made above that earlier Western styles such as the baroque and rococo have involved execution of great complexity. In these examples, however, the addition of and allowance for complex and intricate ornamentation had no effect in liberating the designer from the basic challenges associated with spaning large spaces- whether rectangular or round and domed- regular, symmetrical vertical, load bearing members and linteled or arched cross-members with regular, repeated dimensions have been relied upon to assure structural integrity. In place of these engineering conventions, the computer has allowed a new degree of freedom, shielding the designer from much of the complexity of calculation of load bearability, member fabrication and assembly while providing guarantees of structural integrity. [Perhaps being a manufacturing engineer makes me chauvinistic on this point.] These technologies are those that have shielded the designer's vision and expression from the "Truth of the Material."
  3. Repeating a criticism from the top of this discussion, may we agree that the the "Derridaian" use of the words "Euclidean," "non-Euclidean," "linear," non-linear" and so on in this way have been well dispatched from intellectual discourse by Sokal & Bricmont[[5]] et. al. (whom I'm well aware have their own critics etc. I think the Wikipedia article on Impostures Intellectuelles isn't very good.)? Without question it is the case that there is nothing whatsoever connecting this aesthetic to the ideas of non-Euclidean mathematics. Equally, there is utterly no sense in which the mathematical meaning of "linear" and "non-linear" apply in any particular way to the techniques of design associated with these forms. This is just absolutely the case, okay? Whether the article should include a note that these ideas and terms were bandied at times during the emergence of Deconstructivist Architecture as a distinctly recognized phenomenon, their continued use in this context is discredited. The language should be removed from the lead paragraph. The geometry of these buildings is neither "non-Euclidean" nor "irrational," in any mathematical sense. These spaces are unusual spaces and imaginative spaces. They are not Minkowski spaces.Rt3368 21:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I shouldn't hesitate to add that I'm not dismissive of the work of Derrida or Deconstruction per se. In general, I believe the scientific community ought to be more engaged with philosophical thought and less dismissive- that it's an error to dismiss such discussions. However, I have no doubt that the use in this context of the words I list above are intended not as metaphor (accepting the idea that metaphorical symbols in such cases ought to illuminate rather than obscure) but to be literal, and that this, too, is an error.

For instance, the mathematics used to enable these materials to be assembled in this way relies entirely on conventional linear mathematical forms- material strength and associated stress and strain tensors and superpository analysis and so forth. There may be some non-linear analysis required for things like wind load and so on- I'm no expert in this- but these problems are not peculiar to these unconventional buildings. They are similar or the same for rectilinearly-shaped buildings of similar size. What's important to understand is that there is no meaningful way to "map" the apparent dualism between rectilinear form and curvilinear or geometrically skew form on the one hand to that of linear and non-linear mathematics on the other hand. The pairs of ideas are not comparable.Rt3368 23:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the geometry comment overall, but it could be referred that some architects do use non-linear geometry, when they put the computer running cycles of calculations and iterations and even make use of fractal geometries. I remember a project from Eisenmann where he made a mathematical model of some kind of a "wind" that created the whole "form" of his architecture.

Quite right. There are all sorts of modeling techniques and tools now available and that may be created by and for architects to study and experiment with form. These tools may employ "non-linear" relations (though not likely "non-Euclidean geometry"), for instance in "finite-element" analyses. But there is nothing special about the object of such analysis; they may be applied to more orthodox rectilinear forms as appropriately as they may be to curvilinear and cantilevered structures and so forth.Rt3368 17:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Much Improved

This article is much better and more clear than it was nine months ago. Bravo.Rt3368 17:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Why are the ISBNs in the References section missing?

Any particular reason? --zenohockey (talk) 21:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

An editor was removing numbers for some reason a while ago. When asked about it, they didn't seem to know they were doing it, it was dates and ISBNs typically. I just restored the ISBNs on this article since you asked. Regards, dv dv dv d 22:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Deconstructivism is in opposition to Postmodernism!

It is strange that Deconstructivism has been included in Postmodernism. Deconstructivism is a progressive style that extends Modernist concepts. Deconstructivist designs lack traditional ornament and focus on form. Postmodernism goes in entirely the opposite direction. In reaction to Modernism Postmodernism consistently returns to archaic forms and strongly exhibited traditional ornamental designs.

It seems that Postmodernist advocates who are anxious to stamp anything that has happened recently with their nebulous philosophy have made their mark. Perhaps this is just how it is and a new section under criticism could contain this objection, but it seems that there is no good or explicit reason for the connection to Postmodernism anywhere. -- M0llusk 12:51, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

  • There is definitely arguments both for and against deconstructivism being a development of Postmodern architecture or a development of modernism - or, as many would prefer it - A New Movement. Perhaps we should all have a bit of read of Postmodern architecture and try and form a consensus as to which we think it is. Or more properly, perhaps we should just put the arguments in the article. I'm certainly no apologist for skyscrapers looking like wardrobes but aspects of the Neue Staatsgalerie's warping of form probably can be interpretated as an early deconstructivism.
  • Which modernist concepts have been extended with deconstructivism? truth to materials remain i suppose (partly), use of new materials in surprise ways, yes, form follows function - gone, rational process - gone (in some cases), expression of structure (different in each case), expression of a machine aesthetic (again different in each case), expression of the machine age? gone, expression of the information age (maybe)????????????? --Mcginnly 15:24, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Also I think it makes more sense as part of post modern thought (of which Postmodern architecture is grouped in wikipedia). here's the history of western architecture template.

where would you put deconstructivism? --Mcginnly 16:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

    • There are many specific issues here, but in general I would say that the current and recent edits impress me as respectfully describing the complex relationship between Deconstructivism and Postmodernism very well without the problems I saw in the first edits. -- M0llusk 21:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I think that I can clear up the confusion around the relationship between Postmodernism and Deconstructivism. First of all, we have to understand that neither of these movements can be discussed reductively as "styles." The term "postmodern" in fact has a very different (and more specific) meaning in architecture than it does in any other field. Some say that this is because the term arose first in architecture, and was transferred to other areas by analogy. In architectural discourse, the word "postmodern" frequently has strong negative connotations, because of the bad reputation of 1980s work that rallied under this banner. When we call Deconstructivism a "postmodern" tendency, however, we are responding to the extra-architectural definition of the term. This means that Decon is "postmodern" because the architects were reading what we call "postmodern" theory, despite the fact that they were moving in a direction entirely opposed to "Postmodernists" like Phillip Johnson, Michael Graves, et al.
    • to M0llusk, the issue is not one of stamping Decon with "nebulous" pomo theory, the problem is that the architects, especially Peter Eisenman, made the connection to philosophy explicitFixifex 03:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC).
      • This still does not make sense to me. Deconstructivism in theory, form, and practice can be linked all the way back to Constructivism, yet a subset of modern architects using the term Postmodern to describe their own deconstructivist contributions is enough to rationalize all of deconstructivism as being within Postmodernism? This is wrong and sad at many levels, but I would suggest that most obvious is that Deconstructivism is something which is quite obvious. People know deconstructivism when they see it. On the other hand Postmodernism is a completely undefined and unquantifiable mess of recent works that happen not to resemble a particular set of works that were once called modern. Even a little bit of qualification would help, but the text now states that Deconstructivism is a Postmodern phenomenon. This can't possibly true. Not only are the two styles visibly different, but deconstructivist designs began appearing long before the word Postmodern was used. The "but where does it go then" argument makes no sense either. Superimposed heirarchies are not the source of meaning here, but an after the fact attempt to create categories to explain relationships that might not even have relevance to the work in question. -- M0llusk (talk) 17:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I'd say it does make sense, but depends on what you think postmodernism actually is. I'm not inclined to believe it's solely Jenck's 80s definition which included late work by P Johnson and Stirling - which I think is what you think it is - we'll call that big "P" Postmodernism. But rather it's that architecture which has diverted from the classic modernist paradigm - so Foster and Roger's are still modernist (albeit late-modernist or high-tech modernist per Jencks) because they're still essentially functionalist buildings albeit increasingly influenced by the green agenda these days. Whereas there's a lot more attempts at a kind of visceral, dramatic opera to deconstructivism (admittedly though, Constructivism surely leaned that way, so I see your point, but it's a lot less crazy, and has all that early modern social politics pulsing through it's veins. Ho-hum at the end of the day, perhaps it's not for us to categorise, but I've got several books lumping decon into their (small p) postmodernism sections (or "beyond modernism") sections anyways......regards --Joopercoopers (talk) 19:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Needs improved referencing

I feel that this article does not meet the current FAC standards for referencing. There seems to be unreferenced opinion in the article. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 22:38, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Mattisse, I'm assuming good faith here and believing that, as I edited most of this article under my previous account, this isn't a vexatious action on your part. I've commented out the statements in question for now, as they were added by DVD my collaborator. However, that Decon might share an anti-historicism with modernism is in my opinion, blatantly evident. Perhaps you might point to an example of decon that does reference historical sources, as it's easier to disprove than prove. --Joopercoopers (talk) 14:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
What is your previous account? As far as I know, I have never had any interaction with you or your articles previously. I have no idea who you are. —mattisse (Talk) 16:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
As is clearly marked on my user page - user:mcginnly. Although even as Joopercoopers I'm still the no.3 editor of this article [6] You know how to use this tool yes? Suggest a brief check, might be a good idea to avoid any suggestion of ......impropriety. So do you have an example of decon architecture with an historicist programme I wasn't aware of? --Joopercoopers (talk) 18:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Critical responses seems unbalanced

The section on critical responses seems largely constructed as a defense of the movement against detractors. For example, my response to a statement like "The Wexner Center brings vital architectural topics such as function and precedent to prominence and displays their urgency in architectural discourse, in an analytical and critical way" is to say, "well, maybe a deconstructivist would say that, but one could also argue for it being something of an architectural stunt." I don't think we should be taking the position that we think that it represents something positive. Mangoe (talk) 18:38, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Update

The article provides a very good coverage of the 1980s but needs serious update of more recent developments. It also needs more references to better counter "de-constructive" edits. --Elekhh (talk) 23:10, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

One of the problems here seems to be that the article relies heavily on the published literature rather than more recent news of developments. A good starting point for recent work in the area is Architecture Week which has a number of pertinent articles on new buildings complete with illustrations. The additions will however take a fair amount of time and effort to incorporate into the article. - Ipigott (talk) 10:06, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Deconstructivism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:04, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Why is Deconstructivism capitalized?

– Anne drew 21:57, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Deconstructivism/Archive_1&oldid=957583466"