DECONSTRUCTIVISM

Began in late 1980s, deconstruction addresses concepts in thinking to show how these rely on deeply-entrenched binary oppositions and it works by suspending the congruence between the two. Peter Eisenman believes that it is necessary for architecture to become distant from the strictness and appreciate structure of the logical contrarieties like the traditional contrariety between structure and decoration, abstraction and figuration, figure and ground. Considering these groups, architecture could start a discovery of the between.

While doing it, Deconstruction generates an intricacy at that utilizes the strategy of difference helping the differentiation of the meaning. It may be seen that Deconstruction defers and eludes a description regarding itself, in purpose of not showing itself. It brings continuous questions and spreads through a critique. Hence, architects have adopted the practices of Deconstruction to question the concepts of housing.

Deconstructivism was inspired by another architectural movement, namely, Constructivism which evolved in Russia at the beginning of the century. In fact, many present works that are rooted in earlier, moves in this way. But 1988 was a historic year in its acquiescence in architecture. It started with the Academy Forum at London’s Tate Gallery with the publication of an issue of Architectural Design, and followed by the Deconstructivist Architecture exhibition at New York’s Museum of Modern Art, which caused more controversy and argument about the choice of work and even the term ‘Deconstructivist’.

The practice of Deconstruction in the visual arts results in a further reappraisal of value structures. Deconstructionist art motivates the spectator to get involved in the analysis of the ‘between’ and searches out the possibilities of the frame. Jacques Derrida, in his book The Truth in Painting, has pointed out the importance of this concept: ‘One space needs to be broached in order to give place to the truth in painting. Neither inside nor outside, it spaces itself without letting itself be framed but it does not stand outside the frame. It works the frame, makes it work, gives it work to do...’

Deconstruction, both in architecture and the visual arts, still exists even though it is in its early phases and the imagery it uses is fresh and appeals to a new generation. However as Derrida pointed out about architecture in his discussion with Christopher Norris: ‘you can’t, (or you shouldn’t) simply dismiss those values of dwelling, beauty, functionality, and so on. You have to construct, so to speak, a new space and a new form, to shape a new way of building in which these motifs or values are reinscribed, having meanwhile lost their external hegemony.’

Deconstruction does not rigidly separate a framework. Its critique is consistent and it will be important to be aware of that Deconstruction is above all an activity, an open ended practice, not a method persuaded of its own correct reasoning.

Reference

Cooke, C., Benjamin, A., & Papadakis, A. (1989). Deconstruction: Omnibus volume. London, Academy Editions, pp. 7.