In this ‘information-knowledge culture’,
intricate new networks are substituting current urban order. (Fahmy, 2001) The substitution of
this order is a direct result of a new political, philosophical and economic condition.
Since the Russian revolution, the development of the world, beyond the 1980s in
particular, demonstrates the impact of the ‘technocratic and bureaucratic
society in which we live.’ (Hays, 1998, pg. 696) This impact has driven the
development of Modernism later forming Constructivism and many other ‘isms’.
The theories behind these new art forms helped the unearthing of Postmodernism
and later formed the foundation of Deconstructivism at the exhibition of 1988
at the Museum of Modern Art (MoMA) in New York.
In this
post I will be discussing the crossover of ideas between Deconstructivism and
Constructivism and their development beyond the Russian Movement of the 1920s.
Constructivism
and the Russian Avant-Garde
Prior to
the 1920s, an outburst of change shook the whole of Russia. This development
was driven by the ‘Utopian climate’ that followed the revolution of October
1917. The revolution led artists to look for and foster a new visual
environment suitable to respond to the social desires and principles of the new
Communist order. (MoMA, 2009) This new
visual environment was a step towards a new modernist era.
The Russian
revolution, to a great extent, drove the development of the 1920s avant-garde
thinking. As a result, there was a revival of vernacular arts. Through new
technology and media, Russian societies grew more aware of ‘Western’ development and wanted to follow in
their tracks. (Cooke, 1983, pg.60) The economy of the Russian Empire improved
tremendously and the mentality of society, in terms of education, broadened.
Russia
became the fifth most powerful country on earth due to their high abundance of
iron and steel. The outcome of this was that their economy grew in quantum
leaps. (Hutton, 1972, pg.7) Industrial machinery was born and replaced
traditional handiwork. (Cooke, 1983, pg. 60) The industrial revolution
overwhelmed the 19th century because of the extensive range of materials
suddenly available such as concrete, iron and steel to build with. Architects
and engineers were devising giant structures of unimaginable forms. Many were
frightened of the ‘hideous’ urban factory districts being built and sought to
develop something more pleasing to the public eye. (Modern Architecture,
Thinkquest Learning Foundation, Last updates September 2011) The Russian
avant-garde formed this group.
The Russian
avant-garde was ahead of its time. It
anticipated concepts and technology that came to existence thirty to fifty
years later. Even to this day architecture of its time is inspired by this
period in time. (RA Magazine Winter 2011, Issue 113)
Some
of the tasks taken on by the avant-gardes of the twentieth century were to
eradicate the feeling of shock from the autonomic system. They used elements of
the past to establish characteristics of the new capitalist city. The pace of
life and of organization accelerated in the twentieth century. The coexistence
of communications and eclectic movement flourished, and since then, artists had
started searching within the world of art for freedom that they could not find
in the public world. They began to reduce the structure of artistic experience
to make art more accessible to the public thus eradicating hierarchy and moving
forward in a more collaborative manner. (Hays, 1998, pg.17) This sense of collaboration made the arts
generally more eclectic, developing and sharing ideas, speeding up the
designing process.
Consequently,
artists moved fast in different directions, experimenting with innovative ideas
and generating their own ‘isms’ (theories). Most of these artistic theories
influenced western European art. One of these theoretical movements was
Constructivism. (Hutton, 1972, pg. 6) Constructivism started in the 1920’s. It
was an undertaking that required artists to see works of art as constructions
forming a reality bounded by many other realities. This was their concept; a
principle of form. (Colquhoun, 2002, pg. 127)
The first attempt to communicate and publicize, in print, the
vital ideas of constructivism was in Aleksei Gan’s propaganda book Constructivism,
which was issued in Moscow in 1922 (Romberg,
2010) In 1925, a new professional group was formed within the
Constructivist faction called the Union of Contemporary architects. (OSA) This
group opposed the Rationalist perspective and the First Working Group
eventually drove the avant-garde away from the ‘Utopian rhetoric’. The aim of
the organization was to reflect the Russian avant-garde towards ‘an
architecture grounded in scientific method and social engineering’ as well as
‘reintegration and synthesis’. Before they were properly formed, the OSA also
published a Journal in 1922 that linked closely with avant-garde architects in
‘Western’ Europe. They concentrated on housing and urbanism as the primary
tools to develop socialism. (Cooke, Russian Avant-garde Art and Architecture,
page 58) This was a huge step forward for the constructivists. Suddenly their
ideas were being publicized and drawn on for the development of other art
movements such as Suprematism.
The
Constructivists were anxious about basic pureness of structure. Mathematics
drove their works. (Schumacher & Fontana-Guisti, 2004, pg.8) The
development of constructivism was a serious turning point in architectural and
artistic history. The traditional and conventional rules were questioned,
doubted and experimented with. The only disappointment to this movement was the
lack of perseverance to continue the radical possibilities contained in
constructivist theory. As a result, the movement faded to soon enough be
reinstated by the exhibition of 1988 in New York. (Culler, 2003, Page 370)
Deconstructivism
and the Exhibition of 1988, New York
The
Deconstructivist Architecture exhibition in 1988 at the Museum of Modern Art in
New York was one of the most significant events in the record of this style. It
was curated by Philip Johnson and his associate Mark Wigley, and featured the
works of Frank O. Gehry, Daniel Libeskind, Rem Koolhaas, Peter Eisenman, Zaha
M. Hadid, Coop Himmelblau and Bernard Tschumi. (Johnson & Wigley, 1988, pg.
5-6)
The
exhibition reveals the investigation into the relationship between the
volatility of the early Russian Avant-garde and the solidity of high modernism.
Each project engages with the ‘aesthetic of high modernism’ but associates it
with the ‘radical geometry of the pre-revolutionary work.’ (Culler, 2003, pg.
377)
The
1980’s posed as a critical time where technology and media were developed.
Since then, new products such as the internet, faxes, real-time television, new
media and video games began to spread worldwide entering the world of
production, followed by professional offices and eventually everyday life. This
development in technology made life more multicultural and diverse, resulting
in a wider range of influences across the arts (Prestinenza Puglisi, 2008, pg.
22).
The
projects of this exhibition mark a different awareness where purity of form has
been contaminated. (Culler, 2003, pg. 368) Its success depends upon its ability
to fulfill its purpose; to disturb our perception of form and order. (Johnson
& Wigley, 1988, pg.10)
This
exhibition was a very important part of the Deconstructivist movement. Deconstructivist
architecture arises from traditional architecture and shows elements of deconstruction.
(Culler, 2003, pg. 368) In order to carry this out successfully, the architects
engaged their projects with strategic rules established in the early twentieth
century by the Russian Avant-garde.
This
architectural style involves the need to overcome visual norms and structural
principles that are recognizable. (Fahmy, 2001, pg.5). It exemplifies no movement; it is not a
belief and it has no rules to fulfill. It is not even defined by the seven
architects at the exhibition of 1988 in New York. (Johnson & Wigley, 1988,
pg. 7) The Deconstructivists wanted to create a new aesthetic in order to
change visual conventions and create something out of the ordinary. A lot of
their work was developed through experimentation. They see a link between ‘visionary
architecture’ and ‘electronic media’, which connects architects of the real
space with architects of virtual space. (Fahmy, 2001, pg.5) This notion of
experimentation was also used by the Constructivists but to different
extremities.
Going back a few years to the 1960’s, the French
philosopher Jacques Derrida started to use deconstructive methods to analyze
philosophical writings of his peers. He used Sigmund Freud’s methods of study
(psychoanalysis) to reveal ideas that had been repressed to form the arguments
of other philosophers. He basically looked into the problems that could arise
from the theories of his peers and questioned them. Derrida is not an artist,
but a philosopher and his work has strongly influenced many others in the world
of art. This is one of the steps in the progression of deconstructivism. It had
begun to influence more than just the artistic world.
Derrida’s method of analysis is one that the
constructivists also used in the theory of their works. Nevertheless, Derrida
believed that ‘no theory could pretend to be absolutely consistent, logical or
present itself as a self-contained and whole system’ which goes against what
the Constructivists believed and practiced. (Kochman, 2002, pg. 2)
Deconstruction
is not ‘demolition or dissimilation’. It is the identification of certain
structural complications within seemingly steady structures. Its structural
complications do not lead to the collapse of the structure but to a force
developed by defying the core principles of ‘harmony, unity, stability’,
suggesting a alternative outlook towards structural establishment. (Culler,
2003, pgs. 369-370) However, considering architecture in Jacques Derrida’s
debate with Christopher Norris, he made a point in saying: ‘you can’t (or you
shouldn’t) simply dismiss those values of dwelling, functionality, beauty and
so on. You have to construct, so to
speak, a new space and a new form, to shape a new way of building in which
these motifs or values are reinscribed, having meanwhile lost their external hegemony.’
The use of the word construct may cause
some confusion. Deconstructivism is not to demolish but to distort.
Culler says
(2003), ‘In deconstructive architecture, form distorts itself. Yet this
internal distortion does not destroy the form. In a strange way, the form
somehow remains intact. This is architecture of disruption dislocation,
deflection, deviation and distortion, rather than that of demolition,
dismantling, decay, decomposition or disintegration. It displaces structure
instead of destroying it. (Culler, 2003, pg.381) This form in Constructivist architecture,
remains pure and intact.
Analysis
of Similarities, Differences & Development Beyond the 1920s
Architects
of the New York exhibition of 1988 who were inspired by Derrida were Eisenman
and Tschumi. They apply what has been called ‘Derridean deconstruction’ in
which the proceedings would include dismantling the ‘conventions of
architecture by using concepts derived from cinema, literary criticism,
philosophy and psychoanalysis.’ Although
Derrida does not speak about the influences Russian constructivism had on his
work only the influences of deconstruction, there are still themes we have
discussed earlier, that are running throughout his method of experimentation,
reminding us very much of the social experiments of the avant-garde. (Kochman,
2002, pg.2)
In
Cinegramme Folie at the Parc de La Villette, Tschumi plans a scheme to
deconstruct
the existing material on site by critical
analysis of historical levels that led to its development and enhancing it with
other information derived from other cities. (Fahmy, 2001, pg.5)
An element of the Russian avant-garde thinking is seen here where
Tschumi uses information from other areas to enhance the development of his own
ideas. The way he gathered information from other cities removes the information
from its situ and thus an element of eclecticism is recognized. This is one of
the crossovers of Constructivism and Deconstructivism. They both borrow from
the past and from a wide range of sources in order to build a stronger force of
their own. (Hays, 1998 , pg.17)
Essentially
the main notion of the scheme is the superimposition of ‘three autonomous systems: points, lines and
surfaces. A grid of ten-meter cubes establishes the system of points. The organization
of lines is a set of axes. The system of surfaces is a set of pure geometric
figures: circle, square and triangle.’
Each
individual system starts as a pure structure following the traditional methods
of order. ( Johnson & Wigley, 1988,
pg.92)
But when
another layer is added to the original form, interference may cause structural
‘distortion’, ‘reinforcement’ or maybe even ‘indifference’. What develops from
this superimposition is a sequence of abstract intersections between systems,
where traditional forms and composition are questioned. (Johnson & Wigley,
1988, pg.92)
The
way this applies architecturally shows in the distortion and fragmentation of
lines defining the galleries. The cubes in Figure
2 are broken up then recombined so each point in the grid has a different
combination of the fragments of the initial pure object. (Johnson and Wigley,
1988, pg. 92)
There are a number of crossovers between the Russian Avant-garde
art and that of the Deconstructivists. Firstly, I would like to point out the
similarities of the use of warped planes in Vladimir Tatlin’s design ‘The
Monument to the Third International’ and Hadid’s contribution to the exhibition
of 1988 ‘The Peak’. (Johnson & Wigley, 1988, pg. 7) In fact, all of Hadid’s
designs bare this feature of warped planes. In the book ‘Zaha Hadid and
Suprematism’ it states that ‘she has translated the warped and weightless space
of Russian avant-garde painting and sculpture by Kazimir Malevich, El Lissitzky
and Alexander Rodchenko into her very own architectural language.’ (Douglas,
Gmurzynska and Obrist, 2012)
Another
crossover between Constructivism and Deconstructivism is seen in ‘The Peak’s’
artificial topography; four huge beams tower over the city. ‘They have been abstracted
from the skyscrapers in the city, twisted on their sides, brought up the hill
and driven into the hillside to form a horizontal skyscraper.’ (Johnson &
Wigley, 1988, pg. 68) This reminds us of a further warped vision of Tatlin’s ‘The
Monument to the Third International’. Hadid constantly uses the work of the
Russian Constructivists and Suprematists as a baseline of her work. This is seen very clearly
in her presentation of 'The Great Utopia' (1992) for ‘The Great Utopia’
exhibition at the Guggenheim in New York consisting of a collection of seventy-nine drawing and paintings from
Hadid. The thirty-two ink drawings and forty-seven acrylic paintings were
completed especially ‘for the design of the exhibition of Russian
Constructivist art.
In her Pritzker Prize acceptance speech, Hadid states that she had
a fascination specifically with Malevich, and took up painting as a device for
spatial discovery. ‘The obsessive use of isometric and perspective projection
led to the idea that space itself might be warped and distorted to gain in
dynamism and complexity without losing its coherence and continuity. Despite is
abstractness- this work was always aimed at architectural reality and real
life.’ The use of isometric and perspective projection and its goals of keeping
its roots grounded in architectural reality are two crossovers that are clear
methods of the Russian Avant-garde. Hadid continues describing her methods of
experimentation, which was very much a continuation of the spirit of
experimentation of the avant-garde. (Hadid, 2004)
Hadid
speaks highly of the Russian avant-garde artists. She says their thoughts were
way ahead of their time. The projects they developed predicted the concept of ‘urbanism’
in the 1950s as well as the ‘mega-structure utopias’ of the mid-1960s and the ‘high-tech
style’ of the 1970s. This was the development of Russian constructivist ideas
beyond the 1920s.
Hadid gives us an example of how Ivan
Leonidov’s 1927 project for the Lenin Institute in Moscow was fifty years ahead
of its time and how his 1934-competition entry for the Soviet Ministry of
Industry, which was basically ‘a composition of different towers placed upon an
urban podium, is still an inspiration for urban architecture today.’ The ‘real social meaning and political
substance’ of the Russian avant-garde, the ‘originality and artistic ingenuity’
are a few ideas Hadid maintained from the Constructivists for the development
of her own deconstructive work. (RA Magazine Winter 2011, Issue Number 113)
One
of the most well known exhibitions during the advance of the Russian
avant-garde was the ‘0.10’ exhibition. In this exhibition, there was a visual
and verbal presentation of an interpretation of Suprematism (an avant-garde art
movement dedicated to experimenting with major geometric shapes) by Malevich
and Ivan Puni. (Bowlt, 1971, pg.14) In a very Deconstructive manner, the
presentation was nihilistic where the artists would display ‘ a gesture of rejection’,
would provide ‘no narrative, theme, composition or picture space’, yet
remaining very true to Traditional ideologies, the method of display was a ‘common
way to display domestic icons’. By raising this awareness of traditional
conventions,
the rejection was not absolute. (Milner, 2009)
Hadid
revived this exhibition as well as the exhibition of 1921 ‘5x5-25’. Her work
contained the work from the original exhibitions of ‘0.10’ and ‘5x5=25’. From
the floor in the same room where the icons were displayed, extruded one of
Malevich’s Suprematist Compositions. In the Black Room, displaying objects from
the ‘5x5=25’ exhibition (1921), paintings displayed on Perspex stands gave the
impression of dematerialization and defiance of gravity. This ‘sense of
weightlessness’ also appeared in the Globe Room where constructions strung from
the ceiling were inclining towards a white sphere that arose from the floor.
(Hadid, 2004, pg.8) This defiance of gravity is also seen in Rodchenko’s
hanging sculptures. Hadid explains that she feels this originality surpasses
the time of Russian social experiment. Using Rodchenko’s pure investigations of
space Hadid also released a whole new awareness – the existence of ‘the Space
Age’. (RA Magazine Winter 2011, Issue Number 113)
The
combination of the selections of Constructivist, Suprematist and
Deconstructivist presentations at the exhibition of 1988 highlighted the
influences and crossovers of the Russian Avant-garde thinking in the work of
the Deconstructivist architects. (Johnson & Wigley, 1988, pg. 11) In the
exhibition of 1988, Wigley also included work by Malevich who combines
Constructivism with Suprematism. (Johnson & Wigley, 1988, pg. 11)
As
previously stated, Hadid has said her works engage and are inspired by the
early Russian avant-garde. ‘Paintings by Moholy-Nagy, El Lissizky’s ‘Prouns’
and Naum Gabo’s sculptures but in particular the work of Kazimir Malevich.’ She
goes on to say that his discovery of the experimental process of abstraction
can drive creativity and innovation to extreme levels.
She is driven by the idea of the representation of reality
(mimesis) being discarded, leaving space as a site of ‘pure unprejudiced invention’ and for the release
of limitless creativity) (RA Magazine Winter 2011, Issue 113)
Hadid
has also used Leonidov’s fingerprints in her work. Leonidov is a non-typical
constructivist. (Johnson & Wigley, 1988, pg. 11) His designs seemed
impossible to construct so they were not built, but his ideas always carried a
sense of optimism. Hadid argues that nowadays there is a problem with people’s
perceptions. They give up and feel things are impossible to do or build. She
feels that if there is no optimism there will be no result and therefore
encourages designers and architects to be optimistic and take chances, because
if changes are not taken, the artist may as well sit still all their lives and
do nothing at all. (Schumacher &Fontana-Guisti, 2004, pg.8)
Wigley explains (1988) that there
is clear theme used by every one of the artists at the exhibition. They all
present a ‘diagonal overlapping of rectangular or trapezoidal bars like that of
Figure 7. He continues to state that these elements are also most obviously
seen in all of the Russian avant-garde works from Malevich to Lissitsky. This
is an example of another crossover.
Conclusion
I could
continue to name crossovers between the Russian avant-garde thinking and the
spatial experimentations of the Deconstructivists of the exhibition of 1988 in
New York as there are many.
The vast numbers of influences show that
Deconstructivism is indeed in debt to the Russian avant-garde and Constructivist
movements. The development of these ideas from Constructivism to Modernism to
Deconstructivism is clear through the works of Zaha Hadid. I feel that the
future will always hold an element of the past the crossover of ideas between
Constructivism and Deconstructivism bare no mystery; it is just the result of
further development of ideas, curiosity and enthusiasm. Yes, Deconstructivists
do owe a debt to the Constructivists as they have based their work on the
discoveries from the Russian avant-garde. But when do you ever create a
masterpiece from nothingness? There always is a point of genesis. The
Deconstructivists have used the elements of pure form in Constructivism and
warped them into another reality; a new level of social complexity relevant to
society today.
Bibliography
Books
BENJAMIN Andrew, COOKE Catherine, PAPADAKIS Andreas, 1989. Deconstruction- Omnibus Volume. London:
Academy Editions.
COLQUHOUN Alan, 2002. Modern
Architecture. Oxford: Oxford University Press
COOKE Catherine, 1983. Russian
Avant-garde, Art and Architecture. London: Garden House Press.
CULLER Johnathan D., 2003. Deconstruction: Critical Concepts
in Literary and Cultural Studies, Volume
3, Hong Kong: Graphicraft Ltd.
DOUGLAS
Charlotte, GMURZYNSKA Christina, OBRIST Hans-Ulrich, 2012. Zaha Hadid and Suprematism,
German edition. Hatje Cantz Publishers.
FAHMY Wael, 2001. Reading of Post Modern Public Spaces as Layers of
Virtual Images and Real Events. Manchester: Manchester University.
HADID Zaha, 2004. Zaha Hadid Complete works- Texts and
References, London, Thames & Hudson.
HADID Zaha,
2004. Laureate Acceptance Speech, Chicago: The Hyatt Foundation
HAYS K. Micheal, 1998, Architecture Theory Since 1968. New York:
The Trustees of Colombia University in the City of New York and Massachusetts
Institute of Technology.
HUTTON Leonard, 1972. Russian Avant-garde 1908-1922. New York: Leonard Hutton Galleries.
JOHNSON Philip, WIGLEY
Mark, 1988. Deconstructivist
Architecture, Museum of Modern Art New York. London: Thames & Hudson
Ltd.
MILNER
John, 2009. Suprematism, Oxford: Oxford University Press
|
ROMBERG, Kristin, Ph.D., 2010.. Aleksei Gan's
Constructivism 1917—1928
|
|
Colombia: Colombia University.
|
SALINGAROS
Nikos A., 2007. Anti-Architecture and
Deconstruction, USA: ISI.
SCHMACHER Patrick, FONTANA-GUISTI Gordana, 2004, Zaha Hadid
complete works- Texts and References, London, Thames & Hudson.
Journals
LOUIS, E, 2002. Journal of
Aesthetic Education, Vol.36, no.2. Illinois: Board of Trustees of the
University of Illinois.
Issue Number: 113 Article: Beyond Utopia, 2011. RA
Magazine .
Websites
GAN Alexei, Constructivism
(excerpt), 1922. http://www.mariabuszek.com/kcai/Design%20History/Design_readings/GanConstr.pdf
Issue 113,
Royal Academy Magazine, 2011
http://www.royalacademy.org.uk/ra-magazine/winter-2011/building-the-revolution-beyond-utopia,313,RAMA.html
(MoMA) Museum of Modern Art, New
York
http://www.moma.org/collection/details.php?theme_id=10955&texttype=2
THINKQUEST Learning Foundation, Modern
Architecture, Last updates September 2011, Last viewed 30th January
2012)
http://library.thinkquest.org/3786/modern_architecture.html
WOOLFE, Ross, 2011. The Charnel-House: Historico - Philosophical Notes http://rosswolfe.wordpress.com/2011/07/06/moisei-ginzburgs-“results-and-prospects”-1927/
