Deconstructivism

Deconstructivism

    The Lebbeus Woods manifesto, along with Delirious New York, spoke about how New York City, especially Manhattan, is controlling the people to gain profit. Manhattan is named a Culture of Congestion, with trying to pack as many people into a building as possible. The architecture is no longer art, it is no longer aesthetically pleasing; it now works as a capitalistic means, and works against the people living there. The architect is seen as being able to control this, as they are the one who designed the building - but this isn't true, as the client pays for the city crates they ordered. Architects must move against this, and force a movement against the consumer and for the environment- by limiting retail spaces, and creating multi-use outdoor space, the people in the community themselves are being supported.

    Sprawl and Public Space spoke about public space, and how this can affect the people in the area. This is a similar outlook as I had written as the final theory work in theory I; to aim towards supporting community sustainability with changing the way architects produce buildings. Though, as all of these issues and patterns are connected, this related to a much bigger pattern: Capitalism in general. Deconstructivsim here relates to breaking down the way of thinking, and creating a "genuine urban experience." The reading states, "Public space should be viewed not as a single, unified physical and social entity but as a situation that can be experienced in multiple, partial and even paradoxical ways." The author continues by writing about the target audience for these spaces, and to be able to accommodate them to "different publics." The immediate thought that comes up is the daily commuters, versus the homeless. Many public spaces that have been made available and accommodating to the normal public, have been designed in a specific way to deter people from using these spaces to sleep, rest, and be safe in. How does this act as a public service, when it is doing the exact opposite?

    Lastly, the MOMA Catalog speaks of the architectural deconstructivity movement. An unrealistic view onto architecture, unrealistic when it comes to being structurally viable. A lot of this depended on working against the classical rules of construction. What i find interesting, is that in the reading it says "No generally persuasive 'ism' has appeared. It may be none will arise unless there is a worldwide, new religion or set of beliefs out of which an aesthetic could be formed." A set of new beliefs don't need a religion, but a global pandemic could probably change the way people see outdoor and indoor space. I personally know that my decisions when designing will be based upon the times where I was to stay indoors for over a year, and how personal outdoor space would have been extremely beneficial.

The image I have illustrated depicts the man puppeteering the common people, as they grow more and more congested due to not being able to afford their housing. The people themselves are unable to obtain any land for them to leisure in, as each square foot is bought to construct on.