(Student’s Full Name)
According to Jacques Derrida, “language is a way and so always had a certain connection with habitability and with architecture” (Derrida 320). Therefore, it can be assumed, based on the quote above, that architecture can be seen as a form of language. In fact, some scholars argue that architecture can be considered as a type of written language. Furthermore, some academics note that Derrida’s philosophy questions the “one-to-one relationship between signifiers and signified” (Eisenman 111). Hence, it is the duty of the observer to recognize the meanings of symbols that are present within a form of architecture. It is because of this fact that “appearance” is “more valuable than essence,” according to Derrida’s philosophy of deconstruction (Lawlor 1). It is up to the architect to use a system of symbols to communicate an idea or a “desire” (Derrida 319). Therefore, based on a critical assessment of selected readings, it can be argued that deconstruction in architecture functions as a form of rhetoric, which gives the architect the freedom to create the meaning that he desires through the system of symbols he chooses to incorporate in his building or edifice and focuses on the “moment of now-ness” (Lawlor 1).
In defense of his deconstruction philosophy, Derrida argues that “there may be an undiscovered way of thinking belonging to the architectural moment” a part of the thinking that the detachment of “simple technique” and “thought” (319). The French philosopher contends that that deconstruction enables the architect to engage in a “kind of pioneering” process, which initiates the “clearing of a path” (Derrida 319). In initiating the “clearing of a path,” through his application of the principles of deconstruction, the architect can have the artistic freedom to design an edifice that permits the “free play of signifiers” (Eisenman 111). According to the main principles espoused by the philosophy of deconstruction, the architect should have the right to disregard any “fixed relationship between signifier and signified” (Eisenman 112). Therefore, it can be said that deconstruction enables the architect to convey a message that communicates a particular perspective or fulfill an artistic “desire” (Derrida 319).
Derrida’s deconstruction theory is a mean by which the architect can use the appearance of a building to represent a form of written language that emphasizes an architectural “present” (Lawlor 1). Eisenman argues that when the principles of the theory of deconstruction is applied to architecture then “object, sign, and meaning converge” (Eisenman 113). This convergence appears to question “grammatical, formal, or logical structures” (Eisenman 112). Furthermore, Lawlor argues that this convergence occurs when “Platonic hierarchies” are reversed (1). Some of these hierarchies include “the hierarchies between the invisible or intelligible and the visible or sensible” (Lawlor 1). When this happens, then oppositions or dualism no longer has any significance in a building influenced by the theory of deconstruction, but this type of building will enable one to live in the moment created by it rather than focus on oppositions and dualism.
In conclusion, it can be said that deconstruction helps the architect as an artist to convey a message of desire through a system of symbols that encourage a “free play of signifiers” (Eisenman 111). Scholars argue that deconstruction disregards any “fixed relationship between signifier and signified” (Eisenman 112). Additionally, deconstruction enables the architect to disregard dualisms so that the individual can be focused on the moment created a particular building design.
Works Cited
Derrida, Jacques. “Architecture Where the Desire May Live.” Rethinking Architecture: A Reader in Cultural Theory. Ed. Neil Leach. New York: Routledge, 1997. Print.
Eisenman, Peter. “There Are No Corners After Derrida.” Log 15 (2009): 111-19. JSTOR. Web. 15 Apr. 2016. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/41765266>.
Lawlor, Leonard. “Jacques Derrida.” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2011 Edition),. Ed. Edward N. Zalta. 15 Apr. 2016.<http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2011/entries/derrida/>.
