To deliver inventively and exiting spaces, architecture has to constantly evolve and question its pre-established perceptions and principles.
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 a 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 focuses its attention on 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 presence 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 reconceived 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, and should be perceived as an elevating discourse.
This is done by reinscribing the established norms of architecture, another element implied by Derrida to be consistent in Deconstruction, which is comprised of reinterpreting architectural elements.
In the past architectural ideas were conveyed through drawings as primary means of communication, whereas the Deconstructivists consider the verbal communication as equally as important as the graphical one in expressing their intentions.
Examples of reinscription include Liebskind’s ‘void’, Hadid’s ‘urban carpet’, Tschumi’s ‘urban park’, Eisenman’s ‘diagrams’ and others featured in this study.
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 the one of an individual with technical competence only producing working drawings.
Through the Deconstructive discourse architect’s position has shifted into a poetic profession, inflicting emotions.
Another characteristic of Deconstructivism is the perception of a building raised.
Deconstructvists similar with Constructivists do not build buildings but rather they assemble the building’s elements together.
Whilst Wigley rejected the common aesthetic features in Deconstructive Architecture the projects featured in this study are examples of fragmented quality in their appearance.
Deconstructive buildings have no symmetry and do not facet ornamental values nor do they aim to provide purity.
Deconstructive architecture does not liase with a certain artistic ideology but it responds to its immediate spaces individually.
Deconstructive architecture is a tailored architecture.
The process of obtaining a deconstructive building is parallel to producing a jacket.
Deconstructive construction is similar to the suit’s manufacture, which consists 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 an art discipline.
Displacement, reinscritpion and fragmentation are associated to the Constructivist movement initiated by Naum Gabo.
The poignant story associated with architecture is the forty years of wait for it to become free to create instead of copy.
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.
In a sense deconstruction is the most realistic movement in relation to a human being by not defining the rules of life, when we actually know nothing about another factor associated with it and that is death.
Death which is considered to be absolute, still and non evolving and has been consistent throughout the architecture which the constructivists tried to enrich in the 1920’s and deconstructivists since the 1970’s.
Deconstructive Architecture is not a style. It is a tool that analyses a style and searches for ways to enrich it.
Deconstructive Architecture does not serve the colonial appetite of massively spreading an ideology of a particular time or civilization, seeking new ways to help a building achieve its aims.
Deconstructive Architecture does not turn a building into a slave serving a particular style but is devoted to creating memorable experiences in them.
Deconstructive Architecture does not say which is the correct way to do architecture but explores alternative ways it could be.
Deconstructive Architecture does not celebrate stones, brick, mortar or steel but celebrates life in spaces confined by materials.
Deconstructive Architecture is not a closed chapter, which is why its architecture will continue to excite, shock, horrify and inflict a reaction.
Architecture is not dead, because the Deconstructivists are the ones that make architecture alive and exciting!