Architecture has to constantly evolve and question its established perceptions and principles of working in order to deliver inventively and exiting architectural creativity.
If an architect is preconceived to be a designer then we should interrogate the nature of the word design. The word design derives from two French words de and Signum, which in “The Chambers Dictionary” prefix de stands for off, and the word Signum is translated as a mark.
Thereby, the word design reflects the process in which one steps off a mark which literally means taking something away from a sign.
The word designer does not stand for reproducing the sign and its essence is not for it to follow a consistent path, which in effect constitutes that the incentive of the designer, which is not in being faithful in reproducing icons from the past but instead to create new icons.
In relation to the above statement, a deconstructive architect corresponds more to the essence of the conception of design when a Classical or a Modernist architect be true to taking away the signage by actually producing a signature building true to their values constantly throughout their career?
The heterogeneous and un-repetitive buildings are without a doubt one of the principal characteristics of Deconstructive Architecture.
This associated quality in Deconstructive Architecture is what confuses when one tries to define it.
The concept of conceiving genuine and not so familiar spaces distinguishes deconstructive architecture from other movements, whereas Palladio found his professional enlightenment in symmetry contrary, to challenge their shape, mode or a way of using it?
Technology is rapidly changing in order to accommodate the challenging needs of the user yet architecture still remains a servant to the geometrical parameters of the equipment/ furniture inhabiting the space without transforming them to suit the needs of the user.
The danger of such practice is that the architect either becomes a client by ignoring the design process and knowing exactly what it would look like once the brief is read or follows the client’s vision.
This criticism by Mark Wigley in 1998 has also noted that modern with rigidity in decorative features, Mies did so in detailing of constructive materials in a non-decorative manner, therefore, both the Classicist and Modernist architects have pledged their work to certain etiquette.
However, a deconstructive architect does not adapt his project to a common architectural formula but instead, he/she responds to the non-architectural elements, such as history, events, site context, and etc, because every deconstructivist project depicts different tangents related to its humanistic and sentimental values Deconstructive Architecture cannot be marginalized into a simple definition.
Classical architecture strived upon the production period of building ditto of the decorative ornaments.
Modernist architecture is similar; however, in opposition to the Classicist achieving purity in a building enchanted them.
Both of the aforementioned movements focused primarily on the building process. Deconstructive Architecture in comparison to the movements it bypasses dedicates its attention to the experience of a building after it becomes inhabitable.
One of the colours authentic to Deconstructive Architecture is the focus of the human experience of a space. The same consideration for the sentimental element can be traced in the writings of the Soviet Constructivists.
Constructivists maintained the perception of what the building should shelter but also invoke feelings to the user, hence a building should shelter but an architectural building should create an experience.
Another characteristic of the featured architecture is about displacement that is also identical to Constructivists’ beliefs. Displacement in itself is a condition that every progressive society absorbs.
Architecture is no exception and it cannot progress without its preconceived theories being challenged continuously.
In this respect, Deconstructivist architects have been successful in providing new insights into the theoretical aspect, whereas Modernists architects objected to the present decorative elements in the Classical architecture, Deconstructivists homologues routed their attention to the missing elements of architecture.
Whilst Modernist architects justified their purpose in successfully replacing the ornaments favoured by the Classicists, the deconstructive trajectory relies on displacement, one which, supplements architecture with additional values.
Therefore, Deconstructive Architecture cannot be mistaken for having destructive motives; a view already affirmed by Jacques Derrida should be understood as an elevating discourse.
This is done by reinscribing the established norms of architecture, another element implied by Derrida to be consistent in Deconstruction.
The process of reinscription constitutes in reinterpreting architectural elements. In the past architectural ideas were conveyed through drawings as a primary means of communication.
Deconstructivists consider verbal communication as equally as important as the graphical one in expressing their intentions, an architecture filtered through Deconstructivism no longer depends on the power of the lines but its strength is found in the interpretation of the ideas conceiving the spaces.
Due to this aspect, the image of an architect is no longer envisioned to be one of an individual with technical competence only producing working drawings. Through Deconstructive discourse, the architect’s position has changed into a literary profession.
Deconstructivists similar to Constructivists do not build buildings but rather they assemble the building’s elements together, whereby deconstructive buildings have no symmetry and do not facet ornamental values nor do they aim to provide purity.
Deconstructive architecture does not lie within a certain artistic ideology but it responds to its immediate spaces individually but is a tailored architecture, a process of obtaining a deconstructive building is parallel to producing a tailored jacket.
Deconstructive construction is similar to the tailored suits, which consist of elements that prior are sown individually and after assembled together.
The above are the characteristics of Deconstructivist Architecture but they are never applied in the same way, not even in the many works associated with an individual architect and therefore as it is constantly evolving the process true to an art form, architecture is again reconstituted to the status of art discipline.
The poignant story associated with architecture is the forty years of wait for it to become free to create, instead of copying and spreading a particular ideology obedient to a particular belief instead of architecture users, whereby Soviet constructivists and deconstructive philosophers have both played a major role in order for deconstructive architecture to surface.
The Constructivists are credited for the roots of the tree of deconstructive architecture and Derrida for securing the means under which it would flourish. Deconstruction presents a movement closer to a human being, by not defining the rules of life and conduct.
Deconstructive Architecture is not a style, but a tool that analyses a style and searches for ways to enrich it and does not serve the colonial appetite of massively spreading an ideology of a particular time or civilization. It looks for ways to help a building achieve its aims.
Deconstructive Architecture does not turn a building into a slave serving a particular style.
Deconstructive Architecture does not aim to create iconic buildings. It attempts to create memorable experiences in them.
Deconstructive Architecture does not claim which the correct way to do architecture. It only alludes to the ways it could be.
Deconstructive Architecture does not celebrate stones, brick, mortar or steel. It celebrates life in spaces confined by materials.
Deconstructive Architecture is not a closed chapter. That is why its architecture will continue to excite shock, horrify and inflict a reaction.