I found some of my classmates shared lots of interest in deconstructivism regard to the passing history project 2. I used to fond of this topic. However, for now, after last year approach, I knew I had not deeply approaching it, I just devoid of going on.
Decon is a new way of architectural expressions, can be thought of as one-step higher from contemporary, depending on individualize. Perhaps, we are facing the introduction of new vision of the world; a destructive vision.
Mankind has patiently constructed during centuries, during millennia. Leading architects create new design principles or constructions that make today lives simpler, and even better. For examples the La Citta Nuova by Antonio Sant’ Elia, gives ideas of interconnected new city with large-scale high scale buildings; the dom-ino priciples by Corbu. and so on. Pretty obvious, it’s constructivism, the design been improving to help new designs happen in the future.
Back to the point, decon, is a new thing that there’s no history to relate to. If it was to put right after the trade above in the history, was it represented itself a philosophy of orders that comes in from nowhere, “that wants to replace knowledge with lies.”
It wasn’t my words, I picked it because somebody had make stronger point to support the sentences, I found it reasonable and further add on my own opinions.
After some short reading, some been saying it’s “extremely serious danger”, which I found it’s pretty extravagant, unfair and decolorized the truly side of decon. ‘Trying’ to destroy the site, it did, I really see his point. It’s been arrogant to the historical buildings, the surroundings (landscapes and context), or even to the human scale and comforts (I’m quite sure those examples found in books give the feels if ones approached the spaces through the interiors and plans).
Decon, some categorized it as expressionism, which some of the buildings speaks out itself as its large-scale plate flows, to the north, the south, to the sky; unarranged. It might follow some kind of shape in geometry. For me, the geometry applied isn’t mean anything here. In those buildings, what I saw is that geometry was just a decoration behind the design, if it does applied; it lost the use of geometry where in past years, historical buildings that had applied the geometry or golden sections was to make the whole design looks more comfortable, well arranged and so on. On the other hand, was it trying to express with the help of geometrical arrangements just to make the whole building speak out in massy, was it help here?
Nevertheless, historians can tell the developments by looking at the design of buildings of every period and that what was happen at that period. What was worried here are those buildings, that looks unhealthy, wasn’t it express our society is sick with something; the concept behind, was that mean our society facing some sort of problems that intangibly make the designers thinking of the way of design these buildings, which is best to express the feels. Is that the whole world was ‘injured’ somewhere, it needs some ‘cure’ by deconstruct some bad memories, and continue with some new kind with different approaches. But I don’t seem it’s reasonable to deconstruct the historical buildings around too. It’s been out of topic, I knew. Returning..
Decons buildings, with new shapes, the unusual ones, not all community can accept. For them, it was perhaps ridiculous since they do not understand the meaning behind the design.
In design a building, practical is as important as acceptable; acceptable for communions, as been rational; acceptable to the surroundings, as been respect; acceptable to human senses, as been perceptive. If allow to proliferace, I treasure a better decon with respects, an upgraded ones. Alternatively, maybe, decon will continue to act in contrast to all, as it always been, depending the architects we have now, and future.
Labels: 2004
- 2003(9)
Please refer Labels