f you’re passionate about architecture, you definitely had a moment at some point, no matter your

level, from beginner enthusiast to Pritzker Prize winner, when you asked yourself, “What the
[expletive] is deconstructivist architecture?” (Quick side note: Microsoft Word keeps underlining
the word “deconstructivist,” insisting that this word doesn’t exist. Which, somehow, actually makes
complete sense). The philosophical movement “deconstruction,” which is where deconstructivism
derived, is theoretical and complex enough to understand, but it becomes even more confusing
within the context of architectural theory because buildings are literally “constructed” by
construction professionals. So naturally when people hear the word they immediately think it’s the
process of demolishing a building. But no—that would just be too easy, now wouldn’t it? Because
“deconstruction” was actually started by some smarty pants French/Algerian guy named Jacques
Derrida in his book Of Grammatology.
So What Is Deconstruction?
Deconstruction is a late 20th century philosophical movement primarily fathered by Derrida. It
basically sought to undermine preconceived beliefs surrounding reason and logic (things that
previous philosophers such as Kant and the Enlightenment revered). Instead, Derrida argued that
meaning, from words, symbols (actually, remember symbols for later—it’s what deconstructivist
architecture is founded upon), or whatever, exist because of relationships, the yin and yang between
things. Good exists only because of bad; a chair is a chair and has meaning to us (the audience) as a
chair because we know what isn’t a chair, etc. In addition, the meaning of a thing changes over
time. Today, in 2016, a laptop has a particular meaning and significance but will it have the same
meaning and significance in a thousand years? Today, if someone showed you a sword or armor,
would you actually think they’re taking that thing into battle? Or would you think they just were
into collecting antiques? Anyway, the whole point is that the meaning of anything is fluid, always
changing based on context, relationships to other things, cultural attitudes, gender, age, time, and
other factors too.
Semiotics: How This Relates to Architecture
First off, let’s define semiotics, a word maybe you learned in college and probably forgot about as
soon as the class was over. It’s the study of non-verbal communication, and how we derive meaning
from symbols. Now, take this through the same line of thinking Derrida applied to words—symbols
take on different meaning depending upon context, relationships to other things, cultural attitudes,
time, and other factors too. A classic architectural example of the fluidity of symbolic
representation is how classical Greek columns, the Doric, Ionic, and Corinthian order, receive
different responses throughout history. In its inception Doric columns were considered masculine,
Corinthian was feminine, and Ionic was neutral. But hundreds of years later during revivalist
periods of architecture, when these same columns were built, viewers responded saying that
Corinthian was strong and straight-forward, or in other words, masculine. Same column, different
response. Who’s right? This is when we would quote Le Corbusier and say, “It’s life that’s always
right, and the architect who’s wrong.”
 So now, what is deconstructivist architecture? It’s basically
saying, “The hell with those symbols anyway . . .” because who knows what they mean? It’s about
fragmentation—challenging the idea of what a building or structure even is. So, late 20th century
architects like Daniel Libeskind, Frank Gehry, Zaha Hadid, Peter Eisenman, and company said,
let’s make buildings that sway and wave like they’re being blown around by the wind. Let’s make
them bend. Let’s make them interact. Let’s make them human. Let’s make them not only stand out,
but disrupt the system. Let’s change the landscape, change cities, and change lives. Let’s make
weird looking windows and build staircases to nowhere. Because, what’s a staircase anyway?
And so on, and so forth.
To Review:
Modernism = “Less is more.”
Postmodernism = “Less is a bore.”
Deconstructivism =
WEEEEEeeeeeeeEEEEEEEeeeeeeeeEEEEEEEEeeeeeeeEEEEEEEeeeeeee!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!