| |
Anti-architecture
and Deconstruction, by Nikos A. Salingaros.
In this collection of essays, mathematician
and scientist Salingaros criticizes deconstructivist architecture
and the philosophy that influenced it, Jacques Derrida's
Deconstruction. This well-known philosophy is known more
for its difficulty and its creator than the ideas it presents.
Salingaros admits as much, so his critique centers more
on architects' interpretations of Deconstruction, though
he takes the existence of both to be a breakdown of traditional
ways of thought and existence. Throughout the collection,
the author many times states his goal: being alive to the
maximum extent possible via the shaping of our surroundings.
But this goal always lies underneath a sharply-negative,
and sometimes over-the-top, criticism of architecture not
only influenced by Deconstruction but of 20th-century Modernism.
Aided in this review by Micheal Benedikt's Deconstructing
the Kimbell, we see that the architects that Salingaros
takes aim at - primarily Daniel Libeskind and Bernard Tschumi
- create a shallow, surface architecture that symbolizes
Derrida's Deconstruction without exhibiting any depth of
reading. Salingaros suffers a similar fault. He also errs
in a few other ways: by not clearly demonstrating or discussing
a valid alternative (along the lines of Christopher Alexander's
architecture, whose interview that closes the book is as
negative as the preceding 175 pages), by contradicting himself
throughout his arguments (such as labeling deconstructivist
architecture a cult because it denies any other views as
valid - which may or may not be just speculation - all the
while standing firm that his and Alexander's way is the
truth, based on scientific fact and evidence that he
doesn't present), and placing the yet-to-be-seen harm of
deconstructivist buildings over the harm wrought by automobiles,
of which he never even mentions.
The author's
assertion that the avant-garde and a stylistic pluralism
exists as a means (perhaps even an end?) to destroy society
may be an overstatement for effect, but ultimately it falls
on deaf ears without the positive ways he propounds ever
being presented or evidence that variety in cities is really
that harmful. More than the style of a building and its
neighbors, harm comes from how city's and town are planned,
built, moved around and lived in, but that is a topic outside
the narrow focus of this collection.
or 
|
