Rago 1 Danielle Rago Architecture 210 April 25, 2004

Deconstructive Architecture and Daniel Libeskind: A discourse on deconstruction, its relation to architecture, and its influence on Daniel Libeskinds architecture

It is presumptuous to attempt to cover the theory of deconstructivism as it applies to architecture, and more specifically the architecture of Daniel Libeskind, in totality. What this discourse attempts to do is: 1. Define the term deconstruction (as it applies to both literary theory and architectural theory). 2. Demonstrate the impact of this philosophical theory. 3. Explain how Deconstructive thought entered into the realm of the architectural. 4. Provide insight into the architectural practices of Daniel Libeskind.

Architecture is understood as a representation of deconstruction, the material representation of an abstract idea Mark Wigley

Rago 2 Deconstruction is a school of philosophy that originated in France in the late 1960s. Credited to the philosophy of Jacques Derrida, deconstruction upends the Western metaphysical tradition, that is, the branch of philosophy that examines the nature of reality and the relationship between mind and matter. Post-structuralism, as it is also known, distrusts the very notion of reason, and the idea of the human being as an independent entity. The individual is seen as a composite of social and linguistic forces, thus being constructed (Barry 65). Deconstruction represents a complex response to a variety of theoretical and philosophical movements of the 20th century, most notably Husserlian phenomenology, Saussurean and French structuralism, and Freudian and Lacanian psychoanalysis. The term deconstruction itself derives directly from German philosopher Martin Heideggers Destruktion and Abbau. The major foundations that Heidegger developed became major assumptions of post-structuralist thinkers, such as Derrida. In Derridas own words, it is literally a translation of those terms, and what is translated is architectural. For Derrida, Destruktion means not a destruction but precisely a destructuring that dismantles the structural layers in the system and Abbau means to take apart an edifice in order to see how it is constituted or deconstituted (Wigley 41-42). The theory of deconstructivism has most readily been applied to literature as a method of criticism and a mode of analytical inquiry. According to theorist Jacques Derrida, a deconstructive reading: must always aim at a certain relationship, unperceived by the writer, between what he commands and what he does not command of the patterns of language that he uses[It] attempts to make the not-seen accessible to sight. (Derrida, Of Grammatology, pp.158 and 163)

Rago 3 In her book The Critical Difference (1980), Barbara Johnson clarifies the term: Deconstruction is not synonymous with destruction.' It is in fact much closer to the original meaning of the word 'analysis, which etymologically means to undo The deconstruction of a text does not proceed by random doubt or arbitrary subversion, but by the careful teasing out of warring forces of signification within the text. (Johnson, The Critical Difference, p. 5)

Deconstruction of a text is a process by which the reader must decipher meaning through textual oppositions (binaries): contradictions/paradoxes, shifts/breaks, conflicts, absences/omissions, linguistic quirks, and aporia (impasse). The main effect of a deconstructive reading is to show textual disunity. A deconstructivist demonstrates that what appears to be unified and coherent actually contains contradictions and conflicts which the text cannot stabilize and contain.

The starting point of post-structuralism (deconstruction) is argued to have been Derridas 1966 lecture Structure, Sign and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences. In this paper, Derrida sees in modern times a particular intellectual event which constitutes a radical break from past ways of thought, loosely associating this break with the philosophy of Nietzsche and Heidegger and the psychoanalysis of Freud. Here, Derrida disassociates himself from past discourse with his notion of the decentring of our universe. Prior to this event the existence of a norm or center was constituted as man. This provided a center against which deviations, aberrations, variations could be detected and identified as Other and marginal (Barry 67). Western civilization was built in relation to the center. Derrida argues that the twentieth century destroyed these centers, resulting in no absolutes or fixed points. The universe that we

Rago 4 inhabit is decentred or inherently relativistic. Derrida expresses his philosophy in relation to structure:

The function of this center was not only to orient, balance, and organize the structure one cannot in fact conceive of an unorganized structure but above all to make sure that the organizing principle of the structure would limit what we might call the play of the structureThe concept of centered structure is in fact the concept of a play based on a fundamental ground, a play constituted on the basis of a fundamental immobility and a reassuring certitude, which itself is beyond the reach of play. (Derrida, Structure, Sign, and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences)

Here, the inherent relationship between philosophical thought and architecture becomes prevalent. Architecture and philosophy are effects of the same transaction, effects that can never be separatedThe sense that they are separate is actually an effect of the very contract that binds them according to complicated folds, twists, and turns that defy the institutional practices of both discourses (Wigley 22). The interplay between philosophy and architecture is evident not only in Derridas writings but also demonstrated through his collaborations with architects such as Bernard Tschumi and Peter Eisenman in the Parc la Villete in Paris. The deconstructive ideas of Jacques Derrida can readily be applied to architecture.

Deconstruction is a recent school of thought in architecture that draws its philosophical bases from the literary movement Deconstruction. Its name also derives from the Russian Constructivism movement of the 1920s from which it drew some of its formal inspirations. It is a contemporary style that primarily counters the ordered rationality of Modern Architecture. Deconstructive thought questions conventional ways of perceiving form and space. Architecture that appears fragmented, non-linear, with

Rago 5 bent/uneven outlines and incomplete forms are indicative of this theory. The final appearances of buildings in this style are characterized by a stimulating unpredictability and a controlled chaos. The buildings of the deconstructivists of the 1980s and 1990s are inconceivable without both the influence of the Modernists of the 1920s, and the art of the Russian Constructivists. The deconstructivists first received international recognition through the exhibition Deconstructivist Architecture. This exhibition took place at the Museum of Modern Art in 1988 and was organized by Philip Johnson and Mark Wigley. It displayed work by Frank Gehry, and also buildings and projects by Peter Eisenman, COOP Himmelbau, and Bernhard Tschimi. This exhibition launched the beginning of the worldwide stylistic movement of Deconstructivism.

Deconstruction questions solidarity, uniformity, and cohesion. To deconstruct architecture a person must first question the entire architectural rhetoric of foundation, construction, architectonics, and so on (Wigley 47). We must begin by questioning our idea of a building, and in doing so, we inherently question tradition. As we do, we see that this idea is aligned with the questioning of institutional authority. This relates back to Derridas notion of centre. This so-called centre or institutional authority has been the basis of Western thought the episteme. The process of decentring ourselves/our architecture from an imposed system is the dominating principle in deconstructivism. Our disassociation or breaking away from the episteme which consumes us is desirable. In an attempt to break away from the politics of traditional thinking, traditional relationships are disturbed and as a result, the basic elements of architecture are dismantled. Deconstructivist buildings may seem to have no visual logic or coherence. They may appear to be made up of unrelated, disharmonious abstract

Rago 6 forms. But in fact, these forms demonstrate cohesion through the underlying principles of deconstruction. Derrida poses the question, what justifies the distinction between inside and outside, intelligible and physical, speech and writing? This question is the very essence of his theory. Deconstructivist architecture aims to break down or rearrange the typified notion of a building, exposing its inside to previously unseen aspects of its outside, reconstructing different accommodations of space, forcing different means of access, reworking its principles of what it contains (Wigley 117).

Daniel Libeskind is a practitioner of deconstructive architecture. Libeskind was born in Poland in 1946, studied music in Israel, and received his B Arch at the Cooper Union in New York and a postgraduate degree in History and Theory of Architecture at Essex University in England. Libeskind is an international figure in architecture and urban design, well known for introducing, through a multidisciplinary approach, a new critical discourse into architecture (Libeskind 15). Libeskind explains how his work has developed in the introduction of his book The Space of Encounter : The work has developed in unexpected directions through a practice that does not mimic existing procedures, but instead attempts to break through into the excitement, adventure, and mystery of architecture. By dropping the designations form, function, and program, and engaging in the public and political realm, which is synonymous with architecture, the dynamics of building take on a new dimension. (Libeskind, The Space of Encounter , p.17)

His practice extends from building major cultural institutions such as museums and concert halls, to urban projects, stage design, art installations, and exhibitions. Libeskind is classified as a contemporary deconstructive architect. In order to gain depth into the architectural practices of Daniel Libeskind we must take a closer look

Rago 7 at one of Libeskinds buildings, Between the Lines (Jewish Museum, Berlin, 1988-99), an example of deconstructive architecture. Libeskind conquers building in response to a multitude of forces outside of the realm of the purely architectural, structural, and functional. Upon completion of Between the Lines, Libeskind reflects on his process: The task of building a Jewish Museum in Berlin demands more than a mere functional response to the program. Such a task in all its ethical depth requires the incorporation of the void of Berlin back into itself, in order to disclose how the past continues to affect the present and to reveal how a hopeful horizon can be opened through the aporias of time. (Libeskind, Jewish Museum Berlin, p.19) According to Libeskind, there are three basic ideas that formed the foundation for the Jewish Museum design: First, the impossibility of understanding the history of Berlin without understanding the enormous intellectual, economic, and cultural contribution made by its Jewish citizens. Second, the necessity to integrate physically and spiritually the meaning of the Holocaust into the consciousness and memory of the city of Berlin. Third, that only through the acknowledgement and incorporation of this erasure and void of Jewish life in Berlin, can the history of Berlin and Europe have a human future. (Libeskind, The Space of Encounter , p. 23) Libeskind attempts to create understanding of existence in the experience of his designs. He does this through abstractions, superimpositions of the basic principles of the environment that humans create for themselves. This architecture insists on its own laws, on an uncompromising uniqueness that is reflected in its overall configuration and in every detail, in its materials and structural type (Schneider 27). The museum provides an active interplay between the mental, visceral, and emotional states of being of the visitor. The reactions of those who enter the museum will be connected to their own

Rago 8 view of history. The museum is not a beginning, or an ending; it is the continuation of history. Simply stated, the museum is a zigzag with a structural rib, which is the Void of the Jewish Museum running across it. And this Void is something which every participant in the museum will experience as his or her own absent presence (Libeskind 34). Libeskind describes the museum in his own terms: It is not a collage or a collision or a simple dialectic, but a new type of organization which is organized around a center which is not, around what is not visible. And what is not visible is the richness of the Jewish heritage in Berlin, which is today reduced to archival and archaeological material, since physically it has disappeared. (Libeskind, radix matrix, p.34) Here, Libeskind employs the very principles of deconstructive thought into his project. Libeskind creates a new type of organization in which the organizing principle is the nonexisting center. This relates to Derridas terminology of a decentred universe. Through this system of organization Libeskind takes apart the very principles of Western thought (the episteme) and in the process redefines architecture. In conclusion, I will end with Libeskinds personal statement explaining this new form of architecture expressed in his project Between the Lines: To this end, I have sought to create a new architecture for a time that would reflect an understanding of history, a new understanding of museums, and a new realization of the relationship between program and architectural space. Therefore, this museum is not only a response to a particular program, but an emblem of hope. (Libeskind, The Space of Encounter , p. 28)

Rago 9 Works Cited

1. Barry, Peter. Beginning Theory. Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press, 1995.

2. Derrida, Jacques, Of Grammatology. Johns Hopkins University Press, 1976.

3. Derrida, Jacques, Structure, Sign and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences in Writing and Difference. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978.

4. Johnson, Barbara. The Critical Difference. Johns Hopkins University Press, 1980.

5. Libeskind, Daniel. radix-matrix. Munich and New York: Prestel-Verlag, 1997.

6. Libeskind, Daniel. The Space of Encounter. New York: Universe Publishing, 2000.

7. Schneider, Bernard. Daniel Libeskind Jewish Museum Berlin. Munich and New York: Presetel-Verlag, 1999.

8. Wigley, Mark. The Architecture of Deconstruction: Derridas Haunt. Cambridge and London: The MIT Press, 1993.