Deconstruction of Contemporary Architecture in Seven Trends (original) (raw)
2017, Conference Proceedings The 4th International Conference S.ARCH 2017
This paper proposes a methodology of analysis of contemporary architecture that deconstructs it in seven major trends based on variables that architects undertake when developing a project. This deconstruction of different practices derives in a mapping of contemporary architecture in which buildings can be classified within a specific trend. This methodology is intended to replace a classification of architecture according to scales, location or use with a mapping that emphasizes design processes and intentions. The development of this mapping of contemporary architecture is based on the identification of variables that determine our practice [figure 1]. The design process is understood as an exercise of equalization in which these variables are raised over each other depending on the particular interests of the designer or the character of the commission This equalization allows classification of buildings by affinity with others even if they are unrelated in terms of use, scale or location; but because they share deeper aspects associated with the design methodology behind. In light of the seven variables seen in figure 1, the following seven trends arise [figure 2]: Rationally Rigorous Architecture [1] that privileges technical premises and rational thought; Expressively Organic Architecture [2] that prioritizes an individual and phenomenological approach towards space, materiality and site; Socio-Economically Resourceful Architecture [3] that works with contingency and under social and economical restraints; Objectified Architecture [4] that strongly focuses on formal and esthetic explorations; Symbolic architecture [5] that prioritizes the spatialization of concepts; Regionally Characterized Architecture [6], that shows a special rapport with vernacular building traditions and eco-sustainability; and Nondescript Establishment Architecture [7] that privileges commercial premises. While there are complex cases that can be ascribed to more than one tendency or intention, this paper will present research conducted over three years in a course entitled: “Contemporary Architecture Criticism” [figures 3,4], with architectures designed between 2000 and 2016, in order to demonstrate the relevance and effectiveness of the deconstructive method in teaching contexts, and in the analysis and dissemination of contemporary architecture.
Related papers
Deconstructivism: Translation From Philosophy to Architecture
Canadian Social Science, 2015
There has always been a significant interaction between architecture and the human sciences, such as philosophy, psychology, and sociology. Intellectual and especially philosophical currents of thought have influenced architecture at the time that it was created. This research article examines the study of the philosophical current of “deconstruction” and its relation to deconstructivist architecture. First, the research explains the basic principles of this philosophy, which began with the work of Jacques Derrida. Next, it defines the basic terms and vocabulary of this philosophy. Then, this research identifies the deconstruction concepts that were transferred to architecture and became the basis of deconstructivist architectural styles. Deconstructivist projects and buildings initially seem to be fragmented and lack any visual logic; however, they are unified under the principles and concepts of deconstruction philosophy. The “transfer” of the concepts of deconstruction to architecture was not direct and literal; some concepts were modified and renamed to suit architecture. Moreover, iconic deconstructivist architects were not committed to all concepts of this philosophy; they were known to focus on one or two concepts in deconstruction and make them fundamental principles of their personal styles in architecture. Peter Eisenman focused on the concepts of presentness and trace, Daniel Libeskind concentrated on the concept of absence, and Frank Gehry focused on binary oppositions and free play. Finally, a deconstructivist architect is not as free as a reader or a philosopher; not all that one can do or apply in language and philosophy can be done and applied in architecture.
After the first workshop at the Université Rennes 2 (January 2016), centered on the relationship of criticism to “public opinion” and on criticism as an autonomous discipline, Actors and Vehicles of Architectural Criticism (Università di Bologna, October 4-5, 2016) is the second of three international workshops planned by the Mapping.Crit.Arch: Architectural criticism 20th and 21st centuries, a cartography research project (funded by the French Agence Nationale de la Recherche, ANR) to foster scholarship on the history of architectural criticism and facilitate exchanges between scholars active in this field of research. This second international workshop takes into consideration the actors and the vehicles of criticism: with these terms it refers to both the agents of criticism (critics, architects, historians, publishers, photographers, institutions, etc.) and the media through which criticism is disseminated (press, photography, exhibitions, etc.). The workshop aims to expand the knowledge about the specific functions of these actors and their networks and to outline their mutual relationships. The four sessions investigate the links between the actors, the media of criticism, and the historical contexts within which they materialize, as well as the cultural, intellectual, and institutional milieus from which they originate. The first session Vehicles and Actors: Journals, Newspapers and their Editors deals with the influence on the forms, discourse, and contents of criticism on the part of specific types of journals, from daily newspapers, to cultural magazines and building construction periodicals and wants to put into question the categories that recurrently describe the so-called “typologies of criticism”. The second (Institutions, Exhibitions, Competitions) and fourth (Critical Competencies) sessions intend to broaden the notion of “actor” of architectural criticism not only to encompass critics or authors (the same notion of “authorship” in criticism might be subject to question) but also to include professional and academic institutions, publishers, and the various specialists who are involved in the actual production of professional publications. As a different vehicle of architectural criticism, the third session (Visual Criticism) would like to pay attention to the photographic image and, more generally, to the visual components of architectural criticism.
Theories have helped architecture to evolve and transform a long way since ages. The research paper focuses on the study of two theories of post-modernism contemporary architecture specifically Deconstructivism (evolved since 1960) to the present global style called Parametricism (evolved since 1990). These theories tend to drift away from the basics of modern architecture such as 'form follows function', 'purity of form' and 'structural honesty'. Evolution and important characteristics of Deconstructivism and Parametricism has been discussed and compared. The study leads to an analytical approach based on selected parameters, which are formulated to understand the concept and theories through case studies. These parameters helped in exploring the holistic approach towards the design process adopted by master architects namely Frank O. Gehry, Zaha Hadid, and Patrik Schumacher. The methodology adopted understands the philosophies of both the theories culminati...
Loading Preview
Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.