Professional Documents
Culture Documents
It is above all the historical split between architecture and its theory that is eroded
by the principles of deconstruction.
Bernard Tschumi
Bernard Tschumi, Parc de la Villette, Paris, in Andreas Papadakis (ed),
Deconstruction in Architecture, Architectural Design, Academy Editions, London,
vol.58, no.3/4, p.38
Derrida himself has come up with a word play, the term différance: meaning both
to defer and to differ (the act of putting off until later/ to be dissimilar). see Jacques
Derrida, L'Ecriture et la Différence (1967), translated as Writing and Difference, Chicago University Press,
Chicago 1978 Humpty Dumpty displays a similar logic, when he says:
Derrida seems to empathize with this fictional character, and his term différance is
a typical example of this empathy, encouraging 'flights of fancy which by no means
ring true.' Geoffrey Broadbent, The Philosophy of Deconstruction, in Jorge Glusberg (ed), Deconstruction; A
Student Guide, Academy Editions, London 1991, p.51
Derrida also attacks writing, which he regards as being an inferior form of
communication. He regards speech as being the only true form, since it brings the
listener so much nearer to understanding the true sense of the ideas conveyed by
the speaker (Phonocentrism). It is perhaps unfortunate that we are to arrive at an
understanding of Derrida through the medium of writing, since the last thing
Derrida would wish is for his ideas to be truly conveyed through writing. This is
perhaps his reason for writing in such an ultimately confusing style.
Readings of text, Derrida has pointed out, are best accomplished when working
with classical narrative structures. What Derrida has referred to as 'archetexts' form
a framework for his analysis and also a source of operative meanings to be altered.
If it is necessary to critique words with words, then a similar methodology must be
employed in any Deconstructionist process in architecture, which would necessitate
identification of an 'archetype', to be an equivalent to the archetext. In
architecture, this would derive from the methods and materials of building (and un-
building); or its history of archetypal components, systems and forms.
So in assuming that a Derridean deconstruction can be applied to buildings, an
archetype must be discovered to serve as the subject for analysis. For Derrida, this
took the form of such important literary works as Rousseau's Les Confessions
(1781). see Jacques Derrida, Of Grammatology, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore 1976 An
architectural equivalent to the archetext must also represent an archetypal source.
Very few Modernist or Constructivist- derived building images have been sufficiently
integrated into the unconscious societal mind for them to qualify as archetypal. The
proposition that such stylistic devices as those of, for example, Malevich, who has
been a strong influence upon the work of Zaha Hadid, represent an archetypal
source is thus unfounded. People will identify with high-rise housing blocks and
shopping centres, reflecting Robert Venturi's theories on iconography, see Robert
Venturi, Complexity and Contradiction, 1966 civic buildings in Greco-Roman styles, and Tudor
and colonial houses. James Wines, The Slippery Floor, op. cit., p.137 One of the justifications of
Post-Modern historicism has been based upon the supposition that certain past
references evoke popular response, and are thus, accordingly, archetypal.
The works Splitting and Bingo by Gordon Matta-Clark dealt with the suburban
house as archetype. This recognizable image for Matta-Clark symbolized the stable
middle-class American home as an immutable entity. The cuttings in these two
works sought to deconstruct this vision, in an attempt to liberate the form of the
house, which had come to symbolize containment and suburban alienation
DECONSTRUCTIVIST
The alien is an outgrowth of the very form that it violates; the form
distorts yet does not destroy itself.
Mark Wigley, Deconstructivist Architecture, op.cit., p.133
Deconstruction is not the taking apart of constructions. The nature of the word
suggests a reversal of construction. Thus architecture which appears to take apart a
structure, by simply breaking an object, has been called Deconstructive.
Deconstruction is not demolition, or dissimulation, which suggests a total
breakdown. The flaws, or 'contamination', do not lead to the collapse of the
structure. Deconstruction, according to Wigley, is a challenging of the values of
harmony, unity and stability. It proposes a new view of structure; that the flaws are
intrinsic to the structure, and thus cannot be removed. The flaws are structural. A
Deconstructive architect is therefore 'not one who dismantles buildings, but one
who locates the inherent dilemmas within buildings - the structural flaws.' ibid.
Geoffrey Broadbent makes the suggestion that Wigley is 'equating architectural
form with structure, and that as far as 'deconstruction' is concerned, it seems
useful to separate the two.' Geoffrey Broadbent, Deconstruction in Action, in Jorge Glusberg (ed),
Deconstruction; A Student Guide, op. cit., p.80
Wigley has the view that all architects aspire to simple, geometric forms. However,
these forms may be constructed very simply, without a distortion of the structure,
with no contamination by Wigley's alien.
Broadbent continues to expound upon which buildings are Deconstructivist, using
the defining rules of Wigley. He names the 'standards', Tschumi, Eisenman, Hadid,
Gehry and Coop Himmelblau, as one would expect. But then he takes Wigley to the
extreme, by including Rogers, Foster, Grimshaw, Hertzberger, amongst others.
What can one conclude from all this? Surely that Deconstruction is nothing more
than superficiality; that it seems almost any building by any architect can be
included under Wigley's rules, as long as it displays something as simple as a
slightly tainted form, rather than a form wholly contaminated, as Wigley would
suggest.
Does this 'contamination' uphold the values of the Russian Constructivists, as
Wigley would have us believe? Wigley believes Deconstruction to be a
contamination of form. Russian Constructivism is based on the three elements of
space, time and distance. Constructivism was a premonition of the changes that
were to occur in the fields of information and communication.
Both distance and space became a function of time. Rapid growth in the means of
communication and mechanical transport meant an increase of disurbanization.
Also, the unit of habitation, the dwelling, became increasingly shaped by the nature
and forms of communal production and transport.
Paradoxically, Wigley had previously (1987) argued that models for such
architectural distortions were to be found in the work of Derrida, who:
...the difficulty of defining and therefore also of translating the word 'deconstruction' stems from the fact that
all the predicates, all the defining concepts, all the lexical significations, and even the syntactic articulations,
which seem at one moment to lend themselves to this definition or to that translation, are also deconstructed
and deconstructible, directly or otherwise, etc. And that goes for the word, the very unity of the word
deconstruction, as for every word.
D. Wood and R. Bernasconi (ed), trans. by D. Wood and A. Benjamin, Derrida and Différance, Northwestern
University Press, Evanston, 1988, quoted in Christopher Norris and Andrew Benjamin, What is Deconstruction?,
Academy Editions, London 1988, p.33
The architecture of which he writes seems to belong to two camps; the one of
Derrida, and the one of Wigley. Certainly, the latter is more accessible, simply due
to the difficulty in reading Derrida and understanding what his Deconstruction is all
about.
Since a Deconstructionist approach in architecture requires the definition of an
archetype, to be the equivalent of Derrida's archetext, works such as Splitting by
Gordon Matta-Clark could be described as Deconstructionist. It could be contended
that for an architecture to be Deconstructionist, it must be based upon inversionist
readings of widely accepted building types, and indeed, it is difficult to make a case
in favour of Deconstructionist meaning in newly-built edifices. It would seem that
use of the term Deconstructionist becomes questionable when removed from the
literary context.
Deconstruction is certainly not simply a reversal of the process of construction, be it
in architectural (physical) or linguistic (conceptual) terms. Derrida himself sustained
that Deconstructive architectural thought is impossible, maintaining that
'Deconstruction is not an architectural metaphor', Jacques Derrida, Fifty-Two Aphorisms for a
Foreword, op. cit., p.69 as it is not simply a question of dismantlement, but an
affirmative attitude.
Derrida's readings of philosophical and literary texts show that, by taking the
unspoken or unformulated propositions of a text literally, by showing the subtle
internal contradictions, the text can be shown to be saying something quite other
than that which it appears to be saying. In fact, the text can be shown not to be
saying something specific, but many different things, some of which indeed might
subtly subvert the conscious intentions of the writer. In this way, Derrida shows
that the text is telling quite a different story from what the writer imagines he is
creating.
The main effect of Derrida's deconstructions has been to destroy the (naïve)
assumption that a particular text has 'a' meaning. Meaning is not encased or
contained in language but is coextensive (extending over same space or time) with
the play of language itself. Derrida shows that the meanings of a text are
'disseminated', see Jacques Derrida, La Dissémination, 1972, translated as Dissemination, B. Johnson
(trans.), University of Chicago Press, Chicago 1981 spread, across its entire surface. The link
between meaning and text is cut, going against Saussure's philosophies of 'signs'
and 'signifieds' (and later Lévi- Strauss). see Ferdinand de Saussure, Course in General
Linguistics, trans. Wade Baskin, Cape, London 1974, and Claude Lévi- Strauss, Tristes Tropiques, trans. John
and Doreen Weightman, Cape, London 1973
In contrast,
The wall breaks open in a very complex way. There are no simple
windows, no regular openings puncturing a solid wall. Rather, the
wall is tormented, split and folded so that it no longer provides
security by dividing familiar from unfamiliar, inside from out. The
whole condition of enclosure breaks down.
Mark Wigley, Deconstructivist Architecture, in Andreas Papadakis (ed), Deconstruction;
Omnibus Volume, op. cit., p.133
This tormenting of the walls has parallells with the work of Matta- Clark. In his
work, Matta-Clark creates a distortion of composition rather than form. The form of
the building remains intact; it is the composition within the form which is
tormented. The cuts in the walls are the release of a tension, allowing the spaces to
breathe through the punctures in the fabric. Matta-Clark's 'alien' is an alien which
creates a distortion of composition, a de-composition, rather than an alien which
creates a distortion of construction, a de- construction. Whereas the flaws in
Deconstructivism are intrinsic to the structure, the flaws in Matta- Clark's works are
intrinsic to the composition. The de-composition is a breakdown, an entropological
process, of the composition of elements; walls, floors, windows, doors.