#deconstructivist design

Architecture seems like a really good fit for deconstruction. It has functional requirements, but these are mostly being met as long as there are rooms to accommodate for them. Rooms can be a multitude of different shapes and so leaves a lot of freedom to organize the different parts differently.

That does not mean architects are the only ones that can use these ideas. Graphic design had a bit of a deconstruction period back in the 90s, with the school Cranbrook leading the pack. In high fashion ideas similar to deconstruction are widespread, although it is not too often called deconstructivism.

There has not been much product design utilizing the ideas of deconstructivism. The idea that form follows function seems very much like the cornerstone of contemporary design. To find anything at all I had to be a bit lenient with what I would consider deconstructivist. So the following examples qualify in varying degrees, but all do some things that could be considered deconstructivist.

Zaha Hadid for United Nude

The most obvious place to start looking for deconstructivism in product design was to look for work by deconstructivist architects. Zaha Hadid did not disappoint. These shoes for United Nude play with our expectations and completely change the form of the wearers feet.

Hannes Grebin, a german designer, did a collection of furniture inspired by German 70s interiors. Despite looking completely different than regular chairs and sofas, Grebin assures us that the seating is quite comfortable. Deconstructivist design should still satisfy the initial criteria, just not necessarily in the way you expect.

AANDERSSON

While Grebin’s chair still function as chairs, this water pitcher by AANDERSSON also introduce a new way of interacting with such an object by deforming it. This is what I considering deconstruction in product design at its most interesting. Freedom of form creating new and possibly better ways to interact with an object. 

---

There has not been much deconstructivist product design. While I would not want it to be the only style going about, I think we, as designers, would benefit from not restricting ourselves to the assumptions we have acquired. To experiment, not just with mechanism and materials, but also with form. Sometimes entertaining the idea of going against the modernist ideals that are championed by so many who are considered great designers. I believe it can only do us good.

While few architects directly use Derrida’s theories, some of his points can often be identified in buildings.

The opposition to preconceived assumptions is the most obvious part of deconstruction that can be seen in the architecture. Simple rectangular geometry is replaced by non-normal edges and complex curves. Free form is encouraged and complexity is celebrated.

The other main point from deconstruction that can be applied to the buildings of deconstructivist architecture is the lack of structure. Hierarchy and patterns are avoided which results in buildings with features that seem random. This lack of organization can make it difficult to get an overview and understand the thought behind the building. In this way, deconstruction is a part of post-structuralism.

The lack of hierarchy and patterns is what often distinguishes deconstructivist architecture from other post-modernist (or even neo-modernist) architecture.

The epitome of deconstructivist architecture is a building which organizes its parts in a chaotic manner. Utilizing curves and playing with the negative space. With that heading back to Gehry’s clinic:

It does not have to be curves:

Daniel Libeskind is know for his aggressive designs, very much not rectangular boxes. A more masculine manifestation of deconstructivist ideas.

One could argue that both Libeskind and Gehry are almost deconstructivist architects as most of their buildings include so many of those ideas. What is more common are architects occasionally utilizing deconstructivist ideas, take for example Zaha Hadid. The Vitsoe fire station, pictured, is fragmented, disorganised and a good example of Hadid’s earlier work. Later she would deviate from deconstructivism and design buildings that could be described better by organic and neo-futuristic.

There are different ideas about what deconstructivism is. Is it a movement, a collection of ideas, a collective or style? Bernard Tschumi, one of the architects often classified as someone designing deconstructivist architecture, say it is not a movement, and definitely not a style. Just the name of an exhibition.

He's referring to a 1988 exhibition at the New York Museum of Modern Art called  "Deconstructivist Architecture". It popularized the term and in the process decided who to classify as deconstructivist architects. The show included work by Bernard Tschumi, Zaha Hadid, Frank Gehry, Coop Himmelb(l)au, Daniel Libeskind, Rem Koolhaas and Peter Eisenman. These architects all knew each other, and some of them knew a philosopher named Jacques Derrida, whose work is the source of the exhibitions title.

Derrida is interested in how we make meaning, and maybe more, how we fail to make meaning. From this came his method of critique called deconstruction. He criticizes traditional ideas of language, especially hidden assumptions and structure. As part of his deconstruction he sees all assumptions as invalid and all groupings as arbitrary, in the process removing all meaning from a text. He is known as one of the more difficult modern philosophers to read (and I wholeheartedly agree), but this is him making a point about deconstruction.

A couple of the architects in the exhibition knew Derrida personally. Most notably Tschumi and Eisenman, who interest themselves a lot with architectural theory and both discussed at length with Derrida. While the others were not influenced by Derrida directly, one could argue what looks like his influences can be found in their work. This is true even though some, like Gehry, says that he does not consider philosophy while designing buildings.

I have seen throughout my research that the term deconstructivist is often applied without much care for the process that spawned a design. Things that look irregular, chopped up, disorganized, fragmented and often slightly futuristic, are immidetaly labeled deconstructivist. What this misses about Derrida's theory is that he proposes Deconstruction as a way to critique, not necessarily create.

I highly recommend Ellen Lupton and J. Abbott Miller's essay "Deconstruction and Graphic Design" to understand the difference between the label and the method of questioning, in this case in relation to graphic design where deconstruction has been connected to a very specific style and period: http://elupton.com/2009/10/deconstruction-and-graphic-design/

While academics and art critics may understand the finer points of what is and what is not deconstructivist, this is where we need to separate Derrida from deconstructivism, as the term has come to apply to more than the people who has directly used his deconstruction when designing.

You could simplify my idea of the design process as follows:

1. Get all the constraints. What does it need to do? How big can it be?

2. Figure out a solution within these constraints, while also aiming for:

- Mechanical Simplicity

- Geometric Simplicity

- Minimum Cost

Now, when I see buildings like this The Lou Ruvo Center for Brain Health by Frank Gehry

I realise that some people use a different process.

Let's put this Gehry building up against my initial idea of the design process. I'm sure he has designed within the constraints given to him, the clinic is as functional as any and has loads of great reviews from happy patients.

The parts that I take for granted, is that you should design with cost and geometric and mechanical simplicity in mind. Gehry could have made the building a rectangular box, it would have been a whole lot cheaper to build, but he didn't. I'm not too interested in why he didn't make it a box, though, I'm interested in how he arrived on the design that he did. If you aren't designing towards geometric and mechanical simplicity, which are two concepts that are relatively easy to grasp, what are the concepts that are driving the design process? What other ideas can justify a certain decision over another? One might argue that these things are based on the random whim of the starchitect, but I don't think it is that simple.

These wildly different priorities and ideas governing what is created is what might alienate a design engineer as myself. I could call it weird and bad design, then simply move on. This is not what I want to do though, I am interested in learning what alternatives there are. How do others design?