I'm presently working on deconstructionist architecture but don't know how to relate its plan with form (especially for a library building).
I'm confused, please help me out in understanding its context and structure, form and function. The whole set made me go buzz! I will really appreciate any reference to such a topic, which can give me direction. Waiting for a positive turn out.
I remember that there were a few extensive discussions on this forum regarding deconstruction. Use the search tool of this site, it is very helpful. I came across many posts on deconstruction.
Deconstructism expresses very much of sharp & distort form and shape. However, designer must stimulate the design to serve the aspect of function and practical use and aesthetics as well. Don't treat the structure as decorative. The picture shown is the library in Seattle by Rem Koolhaas. He is sensitive to the surrounding environment and has done good research into the culture context there.
Designer is a leader of the space. Giving a deep thought when designing a space is a must for us to define whether the form and shape is useful to the end-user. Keep it up, surely you'll manage to achieve the best.
I don't think that deconstruction is synonymous with sharp distorted forms and shapes. Unfortunately, the term deconstruction is taken too literally to indicate some form of 'breaking down' of building mass.
Deconstruction as originally envisaged by Derrida in the context of literature, has more to do with re-interpreting the written text by 'de-constructing' it and imbuing it with different meanings, some of which might not have been thought of by even the author. This is in direct opposition to earlier views of the sanctity of the text and the authenticity of the meaning attached to the author's intent.
If we were to see this in the context of architecture, it would mean questioning established notions of space, rooms, functions etc. and simultaneously demonstrating the arbitrariness of the ��meaning�� of forms and its dependence on the point of view of the person experiencing the space.
Environment-behavior studies in architecture have already highlighted the tenuous link between designer's intent and user interpretation. Current practices of architectural deconstruction tend to play on this break of transmission of meaning. They do this by creating the absurd (not in a derogatory sense) in terms of space-function relationship and thereby exciting the viewer and inciting a strong reaction. I view it mainly as an attack on complacency by promoting a shock value. One could almost liken it to Marcel Duchamp's "fountain".
Fortunately or unfortunately, deconstruction is its biggest enemy. If all architecture were to become deconstructive, there would be no deconstruction left!
Having said this, I would like to accept the fact that I am not an expert on deconstruction although I have read quite about it. I hope some others with much more experience answer these thoughts.
Thanks Vishwanath and Hui for your replies.
I have been through earlier discussions on deconstruction but what I really need is study materials about this topic because my place of education is really a handicap here. I have just gone through the precise theory of various deconstructivist architects, that's all. Any digital book will always be preferable. I really need help in this matter. Anyway, thank you once again!