Is Deconstructivism a Real Architectural Style?

Thank you AEC Daily for sponsoring this video. Click here for your source of free and accredited architecture, engineering construction courses:

Betty explains Deconstructivist Architecture, where it originated, why Philip Johnson and Mark Wigley's MoMA show was a crazy mess, and why it may be kind of a dubious "architectural movement."

Thanks to my friends who provided voices for the video. Check out their channels here:
@Embracehistoria
@ByronLewis
@MythologywithMike

You can also follow me on:

Sources & Further Reading
1. John Montague Massengale “The Etiquette of Deconstructivism: Mr. Manners Goes to Moma” Inland Architect (September-October 1988), 66-69.
2. Stuart Wrede, foreword, in Deconstructivist Architecture (New York, NY: Museum of Modern Art, 1988), 6.
3. Philip Johnson, preface, in Deconstructivist Architecture (New York, NY: Museum of Modern Art, 1988), 7–12.
4. Mark Wigley, “Deconstructivist Architecture,” essay, in Deconstructivist Architecture (Boston: Little, Brown & Co, 1988), 12–23.
7. Catherine Ingraham, “Milking Deconstruction or Cow Was the Show?” Inland Architect (September/October, 1988), 61-65.

Creative Commons Images/Videos Sources:

[LimboWitch]

i usually skipped in-video promotions, but this platform is what i really needed, thank you.

[KannikCat]

Thank you for this! Just as "genre" in fiction often has become reduced to mere aesthetic elements or tone, "style" in architecture is also mostly seen and reduced to the look of a building, ignoring the philosophical underpinnings (and all that goes into it: sociological, technological, contextual, etc) that led to the development of both the aesthetics but also the layout, organization, and function of the building. There is a reason and an impetus for the development of new forms and new looks of buildings -- and when talking about any art (including architecture), those are important to include and consider! (I'd say that you'd think the MOMA would understand this, but then what they did to the American Folk Art museum...) Some buildings labelled deconstructivist come out of a reaction (just as po-mo was) to modernism and previous architectural movements. And then others left that behind to go into what might better be named as sculpturalism where the look of the building outside and/or the spatial experience inside is the biggest guiding principal, and with a great amount of freedom in shaping those forms. Which, somewhat amusingly, means the 'style' of deconstructivism is one that doesn't have much in the way of a common visual language... because that was the point. :) Lots to engage with in this video, great stuff!

[Zedprice]

The problem is that, as you pointed out, Deconstruction is a tool for analyzing art, not an end in and of itself. You can go out on a limb and create a deconstructive painting, novel, or dance as a challenge to artistic or cultural norms, but that's fine because the footprint is so small. A post-structuralist painting might be interesting or stupid, but ultimately it occupies only a small space, took only so many hours to create, and its sole purpose is not to be useful, but to be observed and provoke a subjective reaction.

Buildings are quite different: they range from big to huge, require a great deal of materials and thousands to millions of labor hours to create, and are meant to be occupied and used constantly (in addition to being looked at). To commit so much space, labor, and resources to buildings that actively "deconstruct" the notion of purpose is just madness.


And I think that's what actually binds all of these architects together.

[DeviilReaper]

Sometimes when living in a movement, it is hard to see when there are sub-movements, totally unrelated movements, or when a movement changes from one form to another as it will has a transitional phase between two styles. So what you may not call a real movement or think is a part of another movement, historians in 200 years may say 'this is a clear representation of early Deconstructivism'

[WGreen-Author]

Thanks! Love your work. Occasionally “brilliant” is appropriate. Yes…and hard work.

[hhectorlector]

loved this vid. just found your channel!

[LostMekka]

nice to see a new video and it is great as always! i hope youre doing well ❤

[herbtarlic]

Speaking as a person with an interest in the built form, who is living in 2023 Toronto, I would say that I'm a fan of any structure that ISN'T A F**KING GLASS FILING CABINET! AAARRRRGGG!!! Not to put too fine a point on it, of course....

[mthivier]

I'm still not a fan of this style, but thanks to this great video, I at least feel like I understand it a bit more now.

[vianabdullah]

Christopher Alexander seems to make the most sense here. Just because it emits feelings from certain people doesn't mean they like it. It's not enough to get a reaction out of people, but they also must be enjoyed by those who live with the buildings.

[jbushyhead]

Another killer vid Betty! Keep the hits coming!

[johansundberg]

Deconstructivism is the drum’n’base of architecture. It just swings and moves in ways that were previously not experienced. I believe some of the works from this time period are truly breaking new ground and deserve a better understanding. It’s very interesting that this video focuses mainly on the questions of style and idiotic behaviour of Peter Eisenman. The brutalism video was more forgiving and understanding.

[ianmurrell]

I don't mind deconstructivism but like all styles I take each building as I see them. I am reminded of German Expressionism in early films with its angles and strange perspective. I also remember a clock in Jacques Feyder 1929 movie "The Kiss" as an example of early deconstructivist furniture. Droog also has that feel. Tejo Remy's "You can’t lay down your memory" chest of drawers, though impractical for utilised space, give function to otherwise humdrum drawers.

[mayormccheese]

30 years later and Melbourne's Federation Square is still hideous. They wanted to top the Sydney Opera House but ended up building something so ghastly, tourists still prefer to take photos of the 180 year old train station across the street.
Indeed, bad architecture is the worst of artistic crimes. An ugly painting, song, book or sculpture can be ignored and put aside. An ugly building punishes the entire population every day for decades.

[strangebird]

I don't know much about specific architectural styles, but I have strong opinions regarding architecture regardless. This is because, while architecture can be practiced and analysed as an artform, similar to say painting, architecture is different in the way that a constructed building becomes the fate of its inhabitants and neighborhood for years to come. Thus, constructing buildings implies a heavy ethical responsibility - you are literally creating the structure within which future peoples' lives will have to be lived. Therefore, I get strongly agitated when I have to hear from architects who consider themselves artists and who only cares for architecture as art. There have been too many ethically irresponsible and immature wanna be artist architects that people in the world has had to suffer from.
There, vent over. With all that said, I like architecture, and it was an interesting video.

[Raphael]

It's deeper than that. Frances Stonor wrote a book about how the CIA financed french post-structuralist thought to come into the Americas because of the opposition it presents against Marxism (the USA's No1 enemy which is arguably the greatest ideology of the modern era together with fascism, which the USA is very found of lol). MoMA just did it's work as an american cultural institution and tried to fill the contemporary architecture void with something that opposes whats left of XIX century marxism. What they didn't expect is the recent revival of modernist concepts due to the global

[richarddunn]

yes, to deconstruct thousands of years of refined beauty in architecture sounds like a great idea.

[mr]

Excellent, beautiful video! 🌟 SO well researched both in content and visually. 14:10 😂 Spot on! I love your sarcasm.
I agree with your views. (Not an architect here, geographer interested in urbanism.)
Deconstructivism is almost like the architects who design buildings with curved and diagonal outer walls needed a “like, deep” sounding “ism” to give added value to their design. Value can mean credibility but also visibility so their prices can go up.
Many went on to be “starchitects” after all.
Technology allows now for a building to be any shape. That’s wonderful. The sky’s the limit! (My favourite is the Fondation Vuitton in Paris.)
But does that mean the rooms inside the building will be any different? Can you have a deconstructivist bedroom or bathroom?
Will they be more pleasant and livable? Or are the starchitects again treating the people occupying the building as guinea pigs? Will the building integrate harmoniously into its neighbourhood? Or will it be a monument surrounded by a windswept plain? I’m looking at you Ernö Goldfinger and Alison and Peter Smithson.
In that sense it’s just modernism with curves and slants and someone found an old art movement that looks kind of edgy to give the style a cool name.
So then I wonder what impressionist architecture would look like? I’m sure there would be a lot of lily ponds. 😉🪷

[Devnci]

@ARTiculations I'd like to get your opinion on something. There seems to be a growing voice online of people wanting to return to traditional architectural styles.

In some ways I think there is merit because they often offer a simple way to address environmental sustainability while offering character and longevity.

However I am fearful that these opinions stem from computer games aesthetics like Assassin's Creed and get conflated with the tasteless Beverly Hills 'tracksuit architecture' of convenience at all costs expressed with traditional styling cues.

Why do we keep holding onto this expression in relation to modernism?

[WGreen-Author]

Quite exciting someone to expose the elephant in the drafting room. Extremely well done and informative. I look at these buildings as architectural “freak shows”. Buildings on the whole are for people to use and experience. Today’s architects should be improving previous knowledge and skills not encouraging a world of Evil Knievel designers.