Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Portsmouth School of Architecture History and Theory – Unit 220 To what extent do the ideas of Deconstruction physically manifest themselves when discussing the Parc de La Villete? By Nathan Fairbrother
To what extent do the ideas of Deconstruction physically manifest themselves when discussing the Parc de La Villete? By Nathan Fairbrother
Derrida: “But how could an architect be interested in Deconstruction? After all Deconstruction is anti-‐form, anti-‐hierarchy, anti-‐structure, the opposite that all architecture stands for.” Tschumi: “Precisely for that reason.” (Tschumi, 1994, March)
This article aims to question the extent to which Deconstructivist principles were realized in the design of the Parc de La Villete, in Paris. By understanding Jacques Derrida’s theory of deconstruction and applying those principles to Bernard Tschumi’s landscape design, this essay aims to uncover the parallels between the theoretical and philosophical works and how these were applied to built form. Jacques Derrida was a French philosopher whose work on Deconstruction in the late 1960’s initially gave new insights into the reading of art, books and poetry. It then later began to influence the theoretical works of architects such as Peter Eisnenman, Zaha Hadid, and Bernard Tschumi. The park would be the first of Bernard Tschumi’s projects to be built and so became, as Peter Jones puts: ‘the test-‐piece for a new philosophy, a new approach to architecture.’ (Jones, 1989, August) The title Deconstruction is translated from the French word déconstruir (in English: To deconstruct), initially taken from a German term used by Heidegger when discussing ‘de-‐structuring’: Destruktion. Derrida’s decision to use the French word déconstruir allowed for layered associations not only to Heidegger’s term, but also his relation with structuralism. The term not only suggests a negative act of destruction but also the positive act of taking something apart as a way of understanding something anew. (Richards, 2008, p. 12) This mode of thinking can be seen as a development from the Structuralist approaches of critical theory of the modern movement. Deconstruction can therefore be understood as being apart of the Post-‐Structuralist epoch. Structuralism in the context of language and literary critique argues for an objective knowledge, based on reliable conclusions about language and the world. It sees language as an orderly system, not a chaotic one, through which we establish knowledge about the world and the self. The Post-‐Structuralists however, call into question what has been taken for granted here, undermining the absolute certainties of the Structuralists. It sees language as a fluid form without an absolute meaning. As John Storey states, for Post-‐Structuralists, meaning is always a process. What we call meaning is a momentary halt in a continuing process of interpretations of interpretations. (Storey, 1998, p. 95). According to Saussure meaning in language came from a process of signifier and signified and meaning thus emerges through the relationship between signs. Derrida’s language model of deconstructing the polarity between binary terms leads
not to signifiers producing signifieds, but to instead producing an endless chain of signifiers. Jacques Derrida invented a new word to describe this process: Différance, meaning both to defer and to differ. Saussure argued that meaning is the result of difference; Derrida adds to this, saying that meaning is always deferred, never fully present, always both absent and present. (Storey, 1998 p. 95). After being awarded the commission to design the Parc de La Villete 1982 Bernard Tschumi sought to consult Jacques Derrida further into how Deconstructivist ideas could be translated into architectural theory. Tschumi before having won the commission was mostly noted for his theoretical works including, The Screenplays (1977) and The Manhattan Transcripts (1981). His work up until this point had mainly been concerned with multi-‐layering of programme and multi-‐functionality within the urban realm. The theories and structural diagramming produced by the Russian Cinematographer Sergei Eisenstein were a great influence on his early works as well. This can be seen below, Figure 1 shows a sequence diagram produced by Eisenstein for the film Alexander Nevsky. Figure 2 is a diagram produced by Tschumi for a fireworks display at the Parc de La Villete. Figure 1. Sequence diagram by Sergei Eisenstein. Figure 2. Sequence diagram by Bernard Tschumi.
This comparison of representative techniques shows a language is being broken down here, between what may be discussed as an architectural representation, and what may be thought of as a film narrative. It also highlights Tschumi’s interest in architecture as an event or series of events, as Tschumi explains: ‘there is no architecture without event, no architecture without action, without activities, without functions.’ (Tschumi, 1994, March) It is this combination of a desire for a multi-‐layering of programme and interest in deconstruction that led to Tschumi’s Parc de La Villete proposal. Figure 3 shows how the basic principle of the project was the superimposition of three independent ordering systems: points lines and surfaces.
Figure 3. The multi-‐layering of surfaces, points and lines.
The set of points are established as a 10 meter grid of cubes, the system of lines is set on a classical axes and the system of surfaces are a set of uncompleted pure geometries, such as circle, square and triangle. As Philip Johnson states, ‘the result is a series of ambiguous intersections between systems, a domain of complex events – a domain of play – in which the status both of ideal forms and traditional composition is challenged. I ideals of purity, perfection, and order become sources of impurity, imperfection and disorder.’ (Johnson, 1988, p. 92) Just as in Derrida’s work of deconstructing language, Tschumi is trying to deconstruct traditional compositional design. The concept of layering three autonomous systems over the other acts as a physical metaphor of the idea of ‘Différance’. The layers are not only different and independent from each other, and so define themselves by what the others are not, they also differ any meaning they might themselves suggest onto the other, creating a never-‐ending chain of inherent meaning. By creating multiple ordering systems, Tschumi is challenging the ‘one programme’ approach to architecture. This suggests Tschumi’s desire for a denial of coherent meaning. That is not to say, that the place is not intended to have any meaning, but rather should be a continually changing and unstable thing, allowing everyone to have their own interpretation. Figure 4. Shows two folies, or points, connected, or overlapped by the walkway, or grid. Figure 4 shows part of the physical manifestation of Tschumi’s ideas. The folies are red, to stand out as independent systems from the other elements of the park. Stylistically they are of industrial design, almost futurist. Although they are each unique in design, they share these common styles, which again, suggest they are part of the same independent system. Whilst Tschumi’s rhetoric may be that of chaos, it is not seen here, as Peter Jones writes; ‘according to Tschumi there is ‘no rhythm, no synthesis, no order, but the visual effect is not disturbing, indeed it seems parallel to the way different rhythms are set against each other in minimalist music.’ (Jones, 1989, August).
The title of Tschumi’s folio about La Villette was La Case Vide, which translates as the empty house. The follies are supposed to be empty of meaning. Simply a stage set, to allow variations of programme and activity. The follies also demonstrate another interesting aspect of deconstruction; the deviation of ideal forms. Derrida throws into doubt, the very existence of ‘ultimate truth’ or ‘ideal’ and in the same way, Tschumi breaks the cubes in an almost random manner, exposing frames or creating cantilevers at different unpredictable points. In having to manifest these ideas however, Tschumi has evidently had to draw upon various cultural influences. The simple geometric frame, hanging façade and lack of traditional walls and ceiling echo back to modernism of the 1920’s. The representation of Tschumi’s ideas are also interesting to analyze, below are two representations of physical space, one by Tschumi of a Parc de La Villete folly and another by the constructivist set designer Alexandra Exter: Figure 5. Representations by Tschumi of The Parc de La Villete. Figure 6. Design for a Constructivist stage, by Alexandra Exter.
Alexandra Exter was one of the most prominent Russian avant-‐garde artists, particularly noted for her contribution to set design. Looking at figure 6, between 1916 and 1921 Exter worked on stage settings based on the new principles that rejected painted decorations and backdrop curtain. Instead, the artist focused on the construction of volumetrical theatrical space distinguished by dynamism and economical form. Figure 5 shows a representation by Tschumi of one of the folies designed for the Parc de La Villete. The striking resemblance of the artistic styles seems uncanny, and even in the delivery of the finished objects; seem to echo the architectural styles of Chernikov: Figure 7. A folly in the Parc de La Villete. Figure 8. Conceptual drawing by Chernikov.
It may be then, in the act of having to physically manifest his ideas, Tschumi has had to draw upon his cultural situation more than the ideas of Deconstruction. Peter Jones writing in the Architectural Review of August 1989, states:
Perhaps in gaining a physical existence (the folies) have drawn on areas of Tschumi’s cultural baggage, which he prefers not to talk about. For just as many of the more realistic Expressionist projects of the early ’20s were nourished by an implicit Neo-‐Classicism, so Tschumi ‘s work is full of implicit Modernism, transformed perhaps, inverted, even perverted. What else could he do? We are all trapped by our past. (Jones, 1989, August)
Despite this however, Tschumi maintains the folies are meaningless. It may be however that they are not so empty of meaning after all; even the grid they sit on, Tschumi insists is neutral. It is a mechanism, a meaningless tool he states. However, how can such a structure, so enigmatically linked to the modernist movement be neutral? Even going beyond modernism and considering Roman city planning around a North by East axis. Connotations begin to crop up everywhere. Are we beginning an endless chain of signifiers? Tschumi defends his position by stating that these typologies are merely ‘conventions’ and have no basis for ‘hard fact’. Peter Jones also argues this point, stating that society, after the discovery of relativity, has had problems in finding any kind of affirm truth. Thus, making it highly difficult to analyze or critique the origin of these conventions. (Jones, 1989, August). He goes on to say that even ‘reality is a social construction; space and time are social constructions. Thus conventions, along with our other mental constructions, are perhaps all that we have.’ (Jones, 1989, August). This essay has tried to discover the extent to which the ideas of Deconstruction have been manifest into built form when discussing the Parc de La Villete in Paris. Having visited the park last year, having no previous knowledge of the ideas of Deconstruction or the theoretical works of Tschumi, I read the park, purely from its aesthetic, as a futurist/industrialist scheme. Referring to the rhythmic layout and proportionality of folies and their relation to the walkways and smaller parks etc. The ‘violent clash’ of hierarchies that Tschumi talks about, were not present in my mind then. But I had neither the knowledge nor architectural vocabulary then, to express such concepts. Reflecting back on my visit now, having read both Derrida’s philosophical work and the theoretical projects of Tschumi, I still have doubts as to whether the ‘neutrality’ of the follies and the grid they sit on holds true. They are too expressive of an architectural style, to me, to be devoid of all meaning. I do however believe, that to some extent by cross-‐programming and allowing mulit-‐functional use of space within the park, Derrida’s ideas have been realized in a sense that the spaces have no absolute functional meaning. It is in the use of the spaces that Derrida’s ideas of Deconstruction come into reality. I recall walking through the park along a suspended walkway that unexpectedly dropped down at one point
along the route and took me through into a bamboo garden disorientating me for a few moments. Only when I look back now can I appreciate what Tschumi has tried to do here, the location at which points cross lines, and lines cross surfaces is where the collision takes place, and where old assumptions of the idea of park, walkway, garden, etc are broken down and questioned. It is all in the event. Tschumi recalls Derrida, writing a later essay about the folies of the Parc de La Villete expanded on the definition of event as ‘the emergence of a disparate multiplicity’. He went on to expand on the idea of an ‘architecture of the event’ that would, open up that in which history tells us should remain fixed. (Tschumi, 1994, March). As Richards says, deconstruction is not a method applied to a work but rather ‘The process of deconstruction is at work already within the work under consideration.’ (Richards, 2008, p. 134) One cannot argue the extent to which deconstruction as a style, has been realized in the Parc de La Villete, rather to what extent do deconstructive ideas manifest themselves already within the work. I therefore conclude that regardless of the architectural style used it is in the multi-‐layering of devices and programmes, in the effort to create an ‘architecture of an event’ in the Parc de La Villete that most eloquently represents Derrida’s ideas of deconstruction.
Bibliography Figures Figure 1: Sequence diagram by Sergei Eisenstein. Lucarelli, F. Sergei Eisenstein, Sequences Diagrams for Alexander Nevsky and Battleship Potemkin. (2011) Retrieved from http://socks-‐studio.com/2011/04/21/sergei-‐eisenstein-‐sequences-‐diagrams-‐for-‐alexander-‐nevsky-‐and-‐battleship-‐potemkin/ Figure 2: Sequence diagram by Bernard Tschumi. Tschumi, B. Fireworks at Parc de la Villette, sequence diagram (1992). Retrieved from http://plagiarismisnecessary.tumblr.com/page/16 Figure 3: The multi-‐layering of surfaces, points and lines. Jacques Derrida -‐ Point de folie -‐ maintenant l'architecture. Retrieved from http://ducelmarchamp.blogspot.co.uk/2010/11/jacques-‐derrida-‐point-‐de-‐folie.html Figure 4: Shows two folies, or points, connected, or overlapped by the walkway, or grid. Welch, A. Parc de la Villette, Paris, France : Architecture Information. Retrieved from http://www.e-‐architect.co.uk/paris/parc_de_la_villette.htm Figure 5: Representations by Tschumi of The Parc de La Villete. Architectural Drawings. Zissou, R. Retrieved from http://pinterest.com/rudyzissou/architectural-‐drawing/ Figure 6: Design for a Constructivist stage, by Alexandra Exter. Design for a Constructivist stage setting by Alexandra Exter. Retrieved from http://www.vam.ac.uk/content/articles/d/design-‐for-‐a-‐constructivist-‐stage-‐setting/ Figure 7: A folly in the Parc de La Villete. Arquitetura Desconstrutivista II. Wigely, M. Retrieved from http://coisasdaarquitetura.wordpress.com/2010/12/03/arquitetura-‐desconstrutivista-‐iii/ Figure 8: Conceptual drawing by Chernikov. Iakov Chernikov – Constructivist Dreams. Retrieved from http://terrapol.com/blog/2011/11/27/iakov-‐chernikov-‐constructivist-‐dream/ References Richards, M. K. (2008). Derrida Reframed: Contemporary thinkers. London, UK: I. B. Tauris & Co. Ltd. Jones, P. B. (1989, August) Parc de La Villete by Bernard Tsuchmi Architects. Architectural Review. Retrieved May, 19, 2013 from http://www.architectural-‐review.com/archive/1989-‐august-‐parc-‐de-‐la-‐villette-‐by-‐bernard-‐tschumi-‐architects/8630513.article Storey, J. (Ed.). (1998). Cultural theory and popular culture. Essex, England: Pearsons Education Limited. Tschumi, B. (1994). Architecture and Urbanism. Tokyo, Japan: a+u Publishing Co., Ltd. Johnson, P., Wigley, M. (1988). Deconstructivist Architecture. New York, USA: Museum of Modern Art.
