An Introduction to Deconstruction

1. An Introduction to Deconstruction Linguistic Analogy or Revivalism?

2. One of the principal aspects of the Post-modern rejection of the modernist point of view was the shift from social theory to literary theory as the paradigm for architectural theory. Robert Venturi, in his book Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture, used the literary criticism of T. S. Eliot as a framework for analyzing architecture. Eliot had pointed out that poetry is captivating because it is not univalent and clear but multivalent and layered, filled with many possible readings and interpretations, i.e. “complex and contradictory.” Literary criticism, however, was not the only source of new architectural thinking in the 1970s and 1980s. Linguistic theory also rose to prominence as an apparatus for understanding architecture. Prominent among the linguistic theories that architects and architectural theorists considered were structuralism and semiotics, both of which were also related to anthropology.

3. Structuralism argues that meaning in language derives from its internal logic and formal relationships. We can say, “I see the dog,” but we can’t say, “Dog see I the,” without leaving a listener clueless as to what we mean, even though each word is understandable and familiar. The order of the words and their relationship to one another, i.e.the structure of the sentence, conveys the meaning. Semiotics, on the other hand, argues that language is a system of signs that may be understood to have meaning through the convention of social acceptance. The sign (or signifier) is not the meaning (the signified) but conveys meaning. The word “cat” is formed by two consonants and a vowel. It has a sound that has nothing to do with a furry domestic animal that purrs. Yet, we agree that when we say “cat,” we intend to refer to the category of animal that falls within the feline genus.

4. In the 1980s, a third linguistic theory emerged in the circles of literary criticism and was fascinating to a group of architectural critics and academics: deconstruction. The principal inventor of literary deconstruction was Jacques Derrida, a French linguist, who argued that meaning in language is completely unstable. He argued that a text cannot have any single meaning, certainly not a meaning that the writer invests in it. According to deconstruction, meaning is fluid, brought to a text by its readers as well as by its placement on a page, in a journal or a book, and by many other factors that affect the way it is perceived. In fact, these issues are stronger than the intentions of the author, even to the point of arguing that texts have no author, once they have been written. The author sets the words down, but once released, has no more ownership of or control over the text.

5. A number of architects whose work came to international prominence in the 1980s have either been interested in some version of literary theory or have been described as representing the general directions of linguistic theory. These include, but are not limited to, Peter Eisenman, Wolf Prix of the firm Coop Himmelblau in Vienna, Guenther Behnisch, Frank Gehry, and Zaha Hadid, the Iraqi-born British architect, currently building the new Contemporary Art Center in Cincinnati. The question is: do these architects actually derive architecture from linguistic theory or is linguistic theory a convenient way to analyze and discuss architecture? Is their architecture actually rooted in other sources, which are predominantly formal rather than theoretical?

6. In addition to the problem of literary theory, the concept of an architecture of “deconstruction” is also related to a broad interest in and examination of Russian constructivism. This early 20th-century style was used at some schools of architecture, such as the Architectural Association in London, to help students understand transformative design. In fact, a hybrid term evolved from the two words “deconstruction” and “constructivism”: deconstructivism. Whether conscious or unconscious, the use of this word confuses the issue. Are the buildings in question derived from an idea about the relationship between language and meaning or are they a kind of revival of an early phase of modernism?

7. Peter Eisenman, Wexner Center, OSU, Columbus, 1983-89

20. Peter Eisenman, Berlin, Internationale Bau-Ausstellung Apartment block 1982-87

21. Coop Himmelblau (Wolf Prix), Vienna, Attic Conversion, 1984-88

24. Zaha Hadid, Hong Kong, Peak Club, 1982

27. Zaha Hadid, London, Grand Buildings Competition, 1985

33. Zaha Hadid, Berlin, Office Building on the Kurfuerstendamm, 1986

41. Zaha Hadid, IBA Block 2, Berlin, 1985

46. Stuttgart, Hysolar Institut, by Behnisch + Partner, 1987

47. According to Behnisch + Partner, the Hysolar Institute is a ‘spatial collage of ready-mades.’

48. Designed to house two institutes of Stuttgart University, the building is in essence a two-story stacked and double-loaded corridor . Each story consists of metal containers, pre-fabricated and shipped to the site. The shared hall was intended to encourage the two institutes to work more closely together. The central hall is atrium-like and triangular in plan. Because of the placement of the hall, it could remain unheated. Color is applied thematically for visual effect: turquoise for the beams of the stairs and galleries, red for the curved steel tubing that shoots through the whole building, yellow for the roof supports “so that is seems as if the sun is shining even when the weather is bad.”