The problem is that, as you pointed out, Deconstruction is a tool for analyzing art, not an end in and of itself. You can go out on a limb and create a deconstructive painting, novel, or dance as a challenge to artistic or cultural norms, but that's fine because the footprint is so small. A post-structuralist painting might be interesting or stupid, but ultimately it occupies only a small space, took only so many hours to create, and its sole purpose is not to be useful, but to be observed and provoke a subjective reaction. Buildings are quite different: they range from big to huge, require a great deal of materials and thousands to millions of labor hours to create, and are meant to be occupied and used constantly (in addition to being looked at). To commit so much space, labor, and resources to buildings that actively "deconstruct" the notion of purpose is just madness. And I think that's what actually binds all of these architects together.
Thank you for this! Just as "genre" in fiction often has become reduced to mere aesthetic elements or tone, "style" in architecture is also mostly seen and reduced to the look of a building, ignoring the philosophical underpinnings (and all that goes into it: sociological, technological, contextual, etc) that led to the development of both the aesthetics but also the layout, organization, and function of the building. There is a reason and an impetus for the development of new forms and new looks of buildings -- and when talking about any art (including architecture), those are important to include and consider! (I'd say that you'd think the MOMA would understand this, but then what they did to the American Folk Art museum...) Some buildings labelled deconstructivist come out of a reaction (just as po-mo was) to modernism and previous architectural movements. And then others left that behind to go into what might better be named as sculpturalism where the look of the building outside and/or the spatial experience inside is the biggest guiding principal, and with a great amount of freedom in shaping those forms. Which, somewhat amusingly, means the 'style' of deconstructivism is one that doesn't have much in the way of a common visual language... because that was the point. :) Lots to engage with in this video, great stuff!
Sometimes when living in a movement, it is hard to see when there are sub-movements, totally unrelated movements, or when a movement changes from one form to another as it will has a transitional phase between two styles. So what you may not call a real movement or think is a part of another movement, historians in 200 years may say 'this is a clear representation of early Deconstructivism'
Speaking as a person with an interest in the built form, who is living in 2023 Toronto, I would say that I'm a fan of any structure that ISN'T A F**KING GLASS FILING CABINET! AAARRRRGGG!!! Not to put too fine a point on it, of course....
I don't know much about specific architectural styles, but I have strong opinions regarding architecture regardless. This is because, while architecture can be practiced and analysed as an artform, similar to say painting, architecture is different in the way that a constructed building becomes the fate of its inhabitants and neighborhood for years to come. Thus, constructing buildings implies a heavy ethical responsibility - you are literally creating the structure within which future peoples' lives will have to be lived. Therefore, I get strongly agitated when I have to hear from architects who consider themselves artists and who only cares for architecture as art. There have been too many ethically irresponsible and immature wanna be artist architects that people in the world has had to suffer from. There, vent over. With all that said, I like architecture, and it was an interesting video.
Deconstructivism is the drum’n’base of architecture. It just swings and moves in ways that were previously not experienced. I believe some of the works from this time period are truly breaking new ground and deserve a better understanding. It’s very interesting that this video focuses mainly on the questions of style and idiotic behaviour of Peter Eisenman. The brutalism video was more forgiving and understanding.
Christopher Alexander seems to make the most sense here. Just because it emits feelings from certain people doesn't mean they like it. It's not enough to get a reaction out of people, but they also must be enjoyed by those who live with the buildings.
I don't mind deconstructivism but like all styles I take each building as I see them. I am reminded of German Expressionism in early films with its angles and strange perspective. I also remember a clock in Jacques Feyder 1929 movie "The Kiss" as an example of early deconstructivist furniture. Droog also has that feel. Tejo Remy's "You can’t lay down your memory" chest of drawers, though impractical for utilised space, give function to otherwise humdrum drawers.
30 years later and Melbourne's Federation Square is still hideous. They wanted to top the Sydney Opera House but ended up building something so ghastly, tourists still prefer to take photos of the 180 year old train station across the street. Indeed, bad architecture is the worst of artistic crimes. An ugly painting, song, book or sculpture can be ignored and put aside. An ugly building punishes the entire population every day for decades.
It's deeper than that. Frances Stonor wrote a book about how the CIA financed french post-structuralist thought to come into the Americas because of the opposition it presents against Marxism (the USA's No1 enemy which is arguably the greatest ideology of the modern era together with fascism, which the USA is very found of lol). MoMA just did it's work as an american cultural institution and tried to fill the contemporary architecture void with something that opposes whats left of XIX century marxism. What they didn't expect is the recent revival of modernist concepts due to the global climate.......
As an art movement it's incredibly interesting to me, but what I don't understand is why it's expressed as architecture? It works really well as an INTERPRETATION of architecture, I think, and can say a lot about how we view architecture as well as what a piece of architecture actually is. But I have so much more respect for the guy who said he would never live in it, because that is how people feel and it's refreshing to see an architect be honest about it. That said, I have begun to rethink my nearly complete dismissal of modernism and the styles that followed, because that building that houses the CCTV headquarters in Beijing is the most perfect representation of meaning that a building could possibly have. The perfect ratio of 1:1 of what a building houses and how it makes people feel. 10/10, now redo the CIA headquarters, it's way too inconspicuous.
Deconstructivism is architecture with dyslexia and bipolar disorder. An architect who gets frustrated and throws his model against the wall, and the result is basically deconstructive style.
Great video. Some of the best decon work is aiming towards a geomorphic architecture, making buildings and building complexes appear as artificial landforms. There are many good examples, such as Maya Lin's Viet Nam Memorial, rectilinear volumes of earth extracted from the ridge, as in Zaha's peak competition project, or artificial hills in the urban landscape, like Zaha's Wangjing complex, and the 'meandering valleys' of the Jinghe New City Culture & Art Centre. Her office also did the amazing oil research centre in Riyadh, which feels alternatively like an emptied cluster of sand dunes and sik canyons, and the amazing Trojena proposal for a ski resort and host to the next winter Olympic games is like a phantasmagorical range of slopes superimposed onto the desert, a surreal geologic fantasy. Land art architecture like James Turrell's Rodon Crater and Dominique Perrault's Korean University all seem to fit into this category of architecture, and are among the most successful approaches to mega architecture projects that can't help but have a significant impact on the landscape. Regards and thanks for your work.
Quite exciting someone to expose the elephant in the drafting room. Extremely well done and informative. I look at these buildings as architectural “freak shows”. Buildings on the whole are for people to use and experience. Today’s architects should be improving previous knowledge and skills not encouraging a world of Evil Knievel designers.
@ARTiculations I'd like to get your opinion on something. There seems to be a growing voice online of people wanting to return to traditional architectural styles. In some ways I think there is merit because they often offer a simple way to address environmental sustainability while offering character and longevity. However I am fearful that these opinions stem from computer games aesthetics like Assassin's Creed and get conflated with the tasteless Beverly Hills 'tracksuit architecture' of convenience at all costs expressed with traditional styling cues. Why do we keep holding onto this expression in relation to modernism?
Those are usually architects who mostly work in the academic sphere. So normally they are also professors, writers, or researchers. To me, what they are creating are more like conceptual art, and their work are closer to works by fine artists rather than architects. So their works would normally be a personal project, or commissioned by an art museum, university, or client who is interested in artworks rather than buildings. Alternatively, there are some architects who only specialize in concept/schematic design, but then hand off that preliminary design to a project architect (usually with a more technical background) to figure out how to construct (my job).
Does deconstructionist architecture use the building's space efficiently? It doesn't look so, from the outside. Is deconstructionist architecture expensive to build?
10:20 Some fans of "The Death of the Author" might argue that insisting that an artistic work has a meaning derived from the circumstances of its creation rather than the circumstances of its consumption to be a flawed and constrained premise. I don't particularly agree with them, but I don't think it's a completely invalid point, either.
I think that’s totally valid. Constructivism can certainly be consumed in a different context and someone can find value in it even if they don’t share the same values as the creators of it. I guess my problem was more so about how the MoMA show focused heavily on the visual forms only and didn’t connect it to any tangibles values Zaha Hadid may have had. And maybe she didn’t have any particularly philosophical reasons for using the forms she did but then, there wouldn’t be a point in them forcing a connection to such a highly ideological movement.
Excellent, beautiful video! 🌟 SO well researched both in content and visually. 14:10 😂 Spot on! I love your sarcasm. I agree with your views. (Not an architect here, geographer interested in urbanism.) Deconstructivism is almost like the architects who design buildings with curved and diagonal outer walls needed a “like, deep” sounding “ism” to give added value to their design. Value can mean credibility but also visibility so their prices can go up. Many went on to be “starchitects” after all. Technology allows now for a building to be any shape. That’s wonderful. The sky’s the limit! (My favourite is the Fondation Vuitton in Paris.) But does that mean the rooms inside the building will be any different? Can you have a deconstructivist bedroom or bathroom? Will they be more pleasant and livable? Or are the starchitects again treating the people occupying the building as guinea pigs? Will the building integrate harmoniously into its neighbourhood? Or will it be a monument surrounded by a windswept plain? I’m looking at you Ernö Goldfinger and Alison and Peter Smithson. In that sense it’s just modernism with curves and slants and someone found an old art movement that looks kind of edgy to give the style a cool name. So then I wonder what impressionist architecture would look like? I’m sure there would be a lot of lily ponds. 😉🪷
I think Deconstructivism was an important movement to liberate expression however it’s had a net-negative impact on the architectural sphere because instead of seeking coherence architects are really seeking attention leading to discordant cities. Sandton City in South Africa is a good example of what happens when architects are caught between post-modernism and deconstructivism, it kind of looks like a theme park. The problem is that Deconstructivist buildings have the power to be very impactful and engaging but it’s like giving someone a fighter jet- if you’re not a brilliant pilot you’ll just end up with a plane crash.
My first impression is to never give these people public money to build something without a lot of supervision. Beyond that, I can't see the point. It looks like the answer to the question "what if Picasso and Escher collaborated to found a school of architecture?". This seems to me to be an answer madly searching for someone to explain who benefits from the question. Or a wealthy patron.
Good call. I always wondered how decon ideas like own interpretation of subject (signifier / signified), non-binaries and such is intereprted in architectural by simply "deconstructing" a building, which is quite literal and shallow in its interpretation. In fact deconstruction means "dissectin" meaning behind words in linguistics right? I think if we want to understand a movement, go to its source and origins, not in how other art forms and fields interpret it just as what happens in architecture. And true, casuals or younger architects get disilussioned by this abstract and conviluting forms as deep or they value it based on its aesthetic appearance but they disregard the connotations if they pursue such 'styles' , i.e. Shitting on culture, context, tradition, collective consciousness and ideals, etc.
Great video! i believe that this "style" is responsible for solidifying the divide between architects and the general public. can you also do one on critical regionalism?
An other well documented overview of what I also consider to be a style and will complete your precedent video about postmodernism. I believe i've heard Zaha Hadid's brain Patrik Schumacher claiming himself part of the deconstructivist movement which would therefore include Hadid herself. Thankfully nowadays all those styles are getting increasingly labelled as deviances within the general public but would still raise some debates amongst the current professionals who are split between their eagerness for innovations ready to embrace any fallacious style as long as it's new and their bewilderment regarding the surge of the seemingly backward neo-traditional movement.
Well, a lot of (semi-)"paper architecture" can be "build" in the real world, but might not be the best, as a lot of sad events have shown... though cool word! :D
@@Rosa-lv8yw Additionally, your comment doesnt show up because its shadowbanned. Maybe the censoring algorithm confused the words you strung together. Keep your comments kosher please XD
![BOWKYLION - วิงวอน (ex-change) [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/cLdnZWDaO-w/mqdefault.jpg)
The problem is that, as you pointed out, Deconstruction is a tool for analyzing art, not an end in and of itself. You can go out on a limb and create a deconstructive painting, novel, or dance as a challenge to artistic or cultural norms, but that's fine because the footprint is so small. A post-structuralist painting might be interesting or stupid, but ultimately it occupies only a small space, took only so many hours to create, and its sole purpose is not to be useful, but to be observed and provoke a subjective reaction.
Buildings are quite different: they range from big to huge, require a great deal of materials and thousands to millions of labor hours to create, and are meant to be occupied and used constantly (in addition to being looked at). To commit so much space, labor, and resources to buildings that actively "deconstruct" the notion of purpose is just madness.
And I think that's what actually binds all of these architects together.
I'm still not a fan of this style, but thanks to this great video, I at least feel like I understand it a bit more now.
Thank you for this! Just as "genre" in fiction often has become reduced to mere aesthetic elements or tone, "style" in architecture is also mostly seen and reduced to the look of a building, ignoring the philosophical underpinnings (and all that goes into it: sociological, technological, contextual, etc) that led to the development of both the aesthetics but also the layout, organization, and function of the building. There is a reason and an impetus for the development of new forms and new looks of buildings -- and when talking about any art (including architecture), those are important to include and consider! (I'd say that you'd think the MOMA would understand this, but then what they did to the American Folk Art museum...) Some buildings labelled deconstructivist come out of a reaction (just as po-mo was) to modernism and previous architectural movements. And then others left that behind to go into what might better be named as sculpturalism where the look of the building outside and/or the spatial experience inside is the biggest guiding principal, and with a great amount of freedom in shaping those forms. Which, somewhat amusingly, means the 'style' of deconstructivism is one that doesn't have much in the way of a common visual language... because that was the point. :) Lots to engage with in this video, great stuff!
Sometimes when living in a movement, it is hard to see when there are sub-movements, totally unrelated movements, or when a movement changes from one form to another as it will has a transitional phase between two styles. So what you may not call a real movement or think is a part of another movement, historians in 200 years may say 'this is a clear representation of early Deconstructivism'
Speaking as a person with an interest in the built form, who is living in 2023 Toronto, I would say that I'm a fan of any structure that ISN'T A F**KING GLASS FILING CABINET! AAARRRRGGG!!! Not to put too fine a point on it, of course....
I don't know much about specific architectural styles, but I have strong opinions regarding architecture regardless. This is because, while architecture can be practiced and analysed as an artform, similar to say painting, architecture is different in the way that a constructed building becomes the fate of its inhabitants and neighborhood for years to come. Thus, constructing buildings implies a heavy ethical responsibility - you are literally creating the structure within which future peoples' lives will have to be lived. Therefore, I get strongly agitated when I have to hear from architects who consider themselves artists and who only cares for architecture as art. There have been too many ethically irresponsible and immature wanna be artist architects that people in the world has had to suffer from.
There, vent over. With all that said, I like architecture, and it was an interesting video.
Deconstructivism is the drum’n’base of architecture. It just swings and moves in ways that were previously not experienced. I believe some of the works from this time period are truly breaking new ground and deserve a better understanding. It’s very interesting that this video focuses mainly on the questions of style and idiotic behaviour of Peter Eisenman. The brutalism video was more forgiving and understanding.
Christopher Alexander seems to make the most sense here. Just because it emits feelings from certain people doesn't mean they like it. It's not enough to get a reaction out of people, but they also must be enjoyed by those who live with the buildings.
yes, to deconstruct thousands of years of refined beauty in architecture sounds like a great idea.
To move forward we must evolve
I don't mind deconstructivism but like all styles I take each building as I see them. I am reminded of German Expressionism in early films with its angles and strange perspective. I also remember a clock in Jacques Feyder 1929 movie "The Kiss" as an example of early deconstructivist furniture. Droog also has that feel. Tejo Remy's "You can’t lay down your memory" chest of drawers, though impractical for utilised space, give function to otherwise humdrum drawers.
30 years later and Melbourne's Federation Square is still hideous. They wanted to top the Sydney Opera House but ended up building something so ghastly, tourists still prefer to take photos of the 180 year old train station across the street.
Indeed, bad architecture is the worst of artistic crimes. An ugly painting, song, book or sculpture can be ignored and put aside. An ugly building punishes the entire population every day for decades.
It's deeper than that. Frances Stonor wrote a book about how the CIA financed french post-structuralist thought to come into the Americas because of the opposition it presents against Marxism (the USA's No1 enemy which is arguably the greatest ideology of the modern era together with fascism, which the USA is very found of lol). MoMA just did it's work as an american cultural institution and tried to fill the contemporary architecture void with something that opposes whats left of XIX century marxism. What they didn't expect is the recent revival of modernist concepts due to the global climate.......
As an art movement it's incredibly interesting to me, but what I don't understand is why it's expressed as architecture? It works really well as an INTERPRETATION of architecture, I think, and can say a lot about how we view architecture as well as what a piece of architecture actually is. But I have so much more respect for the guy who said he would never live in it, because that is how people feel and it's refreshing to see an architect be honest about it.
That said, I have begun to rethink my nearly complete dismissal of modernism and the styles that followed, because that building that houses the CCTV headquarters in Beijing is the most perfect representation of meaning that a building could possibly have. The perfect ratio of 1:1 of what a building houses and how it makes people feel. 10/10, now redo the CIA headquarters, it's way too inconspicuous.
nice to see a new video and it is great as always! i hope youre doing well ❤
Deconstructivism is architecture with dyslexia and bipolar disorder. An architect who gets frustrated and throws his model against the wall, and the result is basically deconstructive style.
Rất sáng tạo,tôi thích xem video của bạn,chúc bạn nhiều may mắn trong cuộc sống.
Great video. Some of the best decon work is aiming towards a geomorphic architecture, making buildings and building complexes appear as artificial landforms. There are many good examples, such as Maya Lin's Viet Nam Memorial, rectilinear volumes of earth extracted from the ridge, as in Zaha's peak competition project, or artificial hills in the urban landscape, like Zaha's Wangjing complex, and the 'meandering valleys' of the Jinghe New City Culture & Art Centre. Her office also did the amazing oil research centre in Riyadh, which feels alternatively like an emptied cluster of sand dunes and sik canyons, and the amazing Trojena proposal for a ski resort and host to the next winter Olympic games is like a phantasmagorical range of slopes superimposed onto the desert, a surreal geologic fantasy. Land art architecture like James Turrell's Rodon Crater and Dominique Perrault's Korean University all seem to fit into this category of architecture, and are among the most successful approaches to mega architecture projects that can't help but have a significant impact on the landscape. Regards and thanks for your work.
Another killer vid Betty! Keep the hits coming!
Quite exciting someone to expose the elephant in the drafting room. Extremely well done and informative. I look at these buildings as architectural “freak shows”. Buildings on the whole are for people to use and experience. Today’s architects should be improving previous knowledge and skills not encouraging a world of Evil Knievel designers.
@ARTiculations I'd like to get your opinion on something. There seems to be a growing voice online of people wanting to return to traditional architectural styles.
In some ways I think there is merit because they often offer a simple way to address environmental sustainability while offering character and longevity.
However I am fearful that these opinions stem from computer games aesthetics like Assassin's Creed and get conflated with the tasteless Beverly Hills 'tracksuit architecture' of convenience at all costs expressed with traditional styling cues.
Why do we keep holding onto this expression in relation to modernism?
How can there be architects who have built their entire careers on designing unbuildable and impossible buildings?
Those are usually architects who mostly work in the academic sphere. So normally they are also professors, writers, or researchers. To me, what they are creating are more like conceptual art, and their work are closer to works by fine artists rather than architects. So their works would normally be a personal project, or commissioned by an art museum, university, or client who is interested in artworks rather than buildings. Alternatively, there are some architects who only specialize in concept/schematic design, but then hand off that preliminary design to a project architect (usually with a more technical background) to figure out how to construct (my job).
We're going to see a lot more of this too thanks to gaming and virtual reality.
when a group of shallow thinkers but designers misinterpreted a concept, and began to build abominations, is when architecture went very wrong!
loved this vid. just found your channel!
Does deconstructionist architecture use the building's space efficiently? It doesn't look so, from the outside.
Is deconstructionist architecture expensive to build?
Ironically more expensive, probably because the design was much more thoughtful.
10:20 Some fans of "The Death of the Author" might argue that insisting that an artistic work has a meaning derived from the circumstances of its creation rather than the circumstances of its consumption to be a flawed and constrained premise. I don't particularly agree with them, but I don't think it's a completely invalid point, either.
I think that’s totally valid. Constructivism can certainly be consumed in a different context and someone can find value in it even if they don’t share the same values as the creators of it. I guess my problem was more so about how the MoMA show focused heavily on the visual forms only and didn’t connect it to any tangibles values Zaha Hadid may have had. And maybe she didn’t have any particularly philosophical reasons for using the forms she did but then, there wouldn’t be a point in them forcing a connection to such a highly ideological movement.
Modernism: Function before form.
Post-Modernism: Form before function.
Deconstructivism: I shat myself to get attention.
Thanks! Love your work. Occasionally “brilliant” is appropriate. Yes…and hard work.
Thank you so much!!! Really appreciate your support ❤️❤️❤️
Excellent, beautiful video! 🌟 SO well researched both in content and visually. 14:10 😂 Spot on! I love your sarcasm.
I agree with your views. (Not an architect here, geographer interested in urbanism.)
Deconstructivism is almost like the architects who design buildings with curved and diagonal outer walls needed a “like, deep” sounding “ism” to give added value to their design. Value can mean credibility but also visibility so their prices can go up.
Many went on to be “starchitects” after all.
Technology allows now for a building to be any shape. That’s wonderful. The sky’s the limit! (My favourite is the Fondation Vuitton in Paris.)
But does that mean the rooms inside the building will be any different? Can you have a deconstructivist bedroom or bathroom?
Will they be more pleasant and livable? Or are the starchitects again treating the people occupying the building as guinea pigs? Will the building integrate harmoniously into its neighbourhood? Or will it be a monument surrounded by a windswept plain? I’m looking at you Ernö Goldfinger and Alison and Peter Smithson.
In that sense it’s just modernism with curves and slants and someone found an old art movement that looks kind of edgy to give the style a cool name.
So then I wonder what impressionist architecture would look like? I’m sure there would be a lot of lily ponds. 😉🪷
I think Deconstructivism was an important movement to liberate expression however it’s had a net-negative impact on the architectural sphere because instead of seeking coherence architects are really seeking attention leading to discordant cities. Sandton City in South Africa is a good example of what happens when architects are caught between post-modernism and deconstructivism, it kind of looks like a theme park.
The problem is that Deconstructivist buildings have the power to be very impactful and engaging but it’s like giving someone a fighter jet- if you’re not a brilliant pilot you’ll just end up with a plane crash.
Deconstructionism looks confusing and alienating, I don't like it.
Thank you!
It is a style that only architects like. The general public does not fall in love with these buildings.
Thank you
My first impression is to never give these people public money to build something without a lot of supervision. Beyond that, I can't see the point. It looks like the answer to the question "what if Picasso and Escher collaborated to found a school of architecture?". This seems to me to be an answer madly searching for someone to explain who benefits from the question. Or a wealthy patron.
Deconstructionism and post modernism really sucks
Good call. I always wondered how decon ideas like own interpretation of subject (signifier / signified), non-binaries and such is intereprted in architectural by simply "deconstructing" a building, which is quite literal and shallow in its interpretation.
In fact deconstruction means "dissectin" meaning behind words in linguistics right?
I think if we want to understand a movement, go to its source and origins, not in how other art forms and fields interpret it just as what happens in architecture.
And true, casuals or younger architects get disilussioned by this abstract and conviluting forms as deep or they value it based on its aesthetic appearance but they disregard the connotations if they pursue such 'styles' , i.e. Shitting on culture, context, tradition, collective consciousness and ideals, etc.
Thanks
It's a style that pleases just a few people
I personally would have chosen: "Obscurism"
Is it architecture , or is it archicrapture ?
7:22 Hey it's me!
Great video! i believe that this "style" is responsible for solidifying the divide between architects and the general public.
can you also do one on critical regionalism?
An other well documented overview of what I also consider to be a style and will complete your precedent video about postmodernism.
I believe i've heard Zaha Hadid's brain Patrik Schumacher claiming himself part of the deconstructivist movement which would therefore include Hadid herself.
Thankfully nowadays all those styles are getting increasingly labelled as deviances within the general public but would still raise some debates amongst the current professionals who are split between their eagerness for innovations ready to embrace any fallacious style as long as it's new and their bewilderment regarding the surge of the seemingly backward neo-traditional movement.
Just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should do something.
well as long it stands and looks cool hehe
Poststructuralism is bigger than, and only partially informed by, Derrida.
Well, a lot of (semi-)"paper architecture" can be "build" in the real world, but might not be the best, as a lot of sad events have shown... though cool word! :D
Its a very *Kosher* kind of architecture.
Why does architecture always attrack antisemitic weirdos? It's a building, bro, it's not going to take over your political system.
It's an eye sore. That's enough to criticize it.
@@Rosa-lv8yw Additionally, your comment doesnt show up because its shadowbanned. Maybe the censoring algorithm confused the words you strung together. Keep your comments kosher please XD
Just another fad like Brutalism .... sadly...