By Jeremy Pearce
ABSTRACT:
The relationship of the subject to Architecture is an important one, which in contemporary society is often undermined and ignored. When the worth of Architecture is measured by its financial value, the role of the Architect becomes meaningless, and thus the resulting Architecture is devoid of meaning. Only through experience can meaning be produced. The Phenomenological philosophy of Architect Steven Holl seeks to address this issue, which is emphasises through the phenomenal experience within the Nelson-Atkins Museum extension known as the Bloch Building (1999-2007), in Kansas City, Missouri. This paper explores the philosophical thinking of Jacques Derrida in relation to Deconstruction by analysing the text Derrida & Beyond (1996) by Roger Mugerauer. Understanding Derrida’s philosophy allows for a new interpretation of the concepts within Steven Holl’s Phenomenological philosophy to be considered Deconstructive. These concepts are derived from various works of Steven Holl, and an influential text on his philosophy, Phenomenology and Perception (1962) by Maurice Merleau-Ponty. The concepts of intertwining idea and phenomena, anchoring, and the body in space, are analysed to show how they deconstruct traditional perceptions of the museum typology. It is determined that phenomenal experience is created, and in turn a new perception of meaning is available. As a result, it is suggested that the Bloch Building can be understood as both Art and Architecture, however this interpretation is subjective, therefore endless interpretations can occur. It is argued that deconstructing traditional perceptions in a Phenomenological sense, results in an Architecture where experience is valued and new meaning can be produced.
Humans engage with each other in the same as they engagement with Architecture; through emotions, experience and the senses. In a commercially driven society, the role of Architecture is undermined, cheapened by cosmetic aesthetics and budget driven design. The architect should stimulate and arouse inquisition through reflection, producing meaning within their work. One architect, whose phenomenological philosophy is concerned with how meaning is produced through experience, is Steven Holl, who suggests “an awareness of one’s unique existence in space is essential in developing a consciousness of perception.”[1] An example of how his Architecture achieves this is the extension to the old Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art, called the Bloch Building (1999-2007) in Kansas City, Missouri. In a unique context an existing building already inhabits, his treatment of the Bloch Building extension creates a complementary relationship that enhances the experience of both buildings[2]. This essay will analyse Jacques Derrida’s philosophical theory of Deconstruction to show how binary difference deconstructs the perceived objective reality in Western culture. Understanding this theory will facilitate an analysis of Steven Holl’s Phenomenological philosophy and how it can be interpreted as Deconstruction. Specifically, the deconstructive concepts within his philosophy; including the intertwining of idea and phenomena, anchoring, and the body in space. It will be argued that these concepts attempt to deconstruct traditional perceptions of the museum typology in relation to the viewing of art, the physical form and the procession of circulation. Through this analysis of Bloch Building it is suggested that Holl is questioning the prioritized system of art over Architecture by deconstructing traditional perceptions through binary difference. By doing so Holl creates new meaning through the phenomenological experience of both art and Architecture.
Deconstruction
Post-structuralism emerged in France during the 1960s as a radical movement of philosophy and literary criticism, questioning arguments within Structuralism to point out “certain fundamental inconsistencies in their method”.[3] Closely linked with Postmodernism, although not synonymous, both engage in the Deconstruction of traditional thinking toward design; of forms and spaces, and to an extent, the way buildings are made.[4] Similarly, both engage with the importance of culture in the interpretation of texts and perception of meaning.
Deconstruction agrees with the Post-structuralist argument of ‘logos’ or language, wherein the signifier does not refer to a definite signified, but produces other signifiers instead. Frampton describes Deconstruction as an Architecture of “disruption, dislocation, deflection, deviation and distortion” that displaces structure “rather than destroying it.”[5] For Jacques Derrida, Western culture provides an objective reality of false comfort as it is built from the metaphysical tradition of prioritized primal dimensions. Robert Mugerauer reiterates the philosophy of Derrida in ‘Derrida and Beyond’, explaining that prioritized dimensions are “nothing more than strategies that enable us to assume and act as if the world is intelligible,” as they suppress primal differences. The prioritisation of one dimension implies the existence of a binary difference. For example, prioritizing presence cannot be interpreted without a binary difference of absence. Mugerauer explains that the in-between, or différance is primal and has no origin or end, forever shifting in “continuing difference.”[6] Derrida’s term “Différance,” engages in both interpretations of the word. To differ means to be spatially separate where “nothing, not even the present or consciousness, is self-present or identical” and to defer means to “temporally separate” delaying the present and not presenting the whole. In this sense, Derrida suggests Deconstruction as a strategy to unpack “undecidable meanings” in texts, to comprehend alternative determinations that question their accepted readings.[7] This undecidability encourages meanings and interpretations outside of the author’s intent, an idea concealed in Western culture through metaphysical tradition.[8]
Derrida proposes a need to deconstruct the relationship of the built environment and culture that constitutes “our culturally built world.” By doing so, Western culture would be liberated from its “sham reality” and transcend the “social and historical embodiments of the metaphysics of presence.”[9] Suggesting that all built things are subject to this inherent flaw, they can only be interpreted as representational, or specifically, as signs. Therefore, as signs their being always lies elsewhere, as a sign is the sign of something else, lacking a referent or foundation, always in différance. Language and culture are therefore trapped in a self-referential system of signs that derive meaning from a place in historical systems of difference. This suggest that exploring an objective reality is futile as culture is unavoidable. Derrida proposes participating in “the free-play of difference” whereby no definitive interpretations or absolute truth can be discovered. This involves the constant deferral of meaning, to a point of endless supplementarity, by the play of signification[10].
From this point, Derrida moves toward displacement, through reversing hierarchy within binary systems. To shift priority to the suppressed dimension, emphasizing différance. Specifically in the case of culture and the built form, where culture is the dominant dimension. As a result, Deconstruction in Architecture can subvert the culturally enfranchised image of built form by becoming something unrecognisable by the very tradition it organizes.[11] In the words of Derrida, “Deconstruction through Architecture would involve exploiting the fiction that cultural presence is instantiated in building by showing how the built-up undercuts or discloses fissures in the goals of presence and identity desired by culture.”[12] This implies that Deconstruction is not simply architectural, rather, it is the displacement of traditional thinking about Architecture.
Before the Architecture of Steven Holl can be understood through Deconstruction, an analysis of his Phenomenological philosophy highlights how certain concepts generate a deconstructive Architecture.
Phenomenology
Phenomenology, as described by French philosopher Maurice Merleau-Ponty, “is the study of essence… the essence of perception… of consciousness” but also puts “essences back into existence”[13] The architectural philosophy of Steven Holl heavily references the phenomenology philosophy of Maurice Merleau-Ponty, through which he develops his own way of thinking. The process of re-interpreting phenomenological philosophy into architectural concepts links the often comparable fields.
Holl’s notion of the “intertwining of idea and phenomena”[14] highlights the connection between his philosophical framework and architectural thinking. Producing meaning revolves around “a twofold interaction of experiential phenomena and concept.”[15] Holl suggests experience of the phenomena becomes more tangible when the driving force of the Architecture is the idea. Hence, the forms, arrangement and representation of the architectural outcome are generated through the inter-relation of the idea and phenomena, or as Merleau-Ponty summates, “the reciprocal insertion and intertwining of one in the other.”[16] A realized intertwined relation occurs when a building is constructed, and therefore the architectural embodiment of intellect and experience has occurred.[17] At this point, the materialization of the buildings make-up can occur, creating the physical reality, within which, phenomenal experience and the relation of building and the body exists. Put simply, the idea is materialized into forms and space. The interconnection between intellect and experience is not a stage within the process of design, rather, it is an integral interaction within the practice of Architecture.
A concept Holl calls ‘anchoring’ indicates the fixation of a building to a specific site and circumstance. By ‘rooting’ the building into the site a more intense connection is established. Holl suggests that this relationship of building to site and situation contains a metaphysical, experiential and poetic dimension. The anchoring of a building into a site creates a unique relationship or situation. Holl states that “building transcends physical and functional requirement”[18] by connecting to its location and producing meaning from its situation. Anchoring creates a unification, or phenomenological link between Architecture and the site, wherein experience emerges. Holl suggests that it is the role of Architecture not simply occupy landscape, rather to explain or enhance it.
The importance of the spatial perception of the body is evident in Holl’s articulation of space, whereby the connection of the body and the world are intertwined. Merleau-Ponty describes this relation of subject to space as the “gearing of the subject onto his world.”[19] For Holl, motility is significant to phenomenal experience, suggesting the “criss-crossing of the body through space… joins space, body, eye, and mind.” Movement in this regard heightens the spatial perception of the body as “it crosses through overlapping perspectives formed within spaces,” [20] creating an elemental connection between the body and the Architecture. This is governed by the apparent horizon, the subjective reference from which the body is able perceive space. Parallax is a concept of spatial definition that Holl uses in relation to the body moving through space, where varying perspectives overlap in an “always changing visually tectonic landscape.”[21] Although space is a stationary physical condition, the motility of the body along varying axes creates a fluid spatiality wherein the spatial perceptions of the moving body are dynamic. Through parallax, Holl’s initiates the design process by designing three-dimensional space in watercolour perspectives that indicate the phenomenal features of a space (fig.1). This process aims to develop architectural outcomes through imagined perceptual experiences.
Figure 1: Steven Holl Watercolour Perspective in Bloch Building Gallery[22]
Art & Architecture
The relationship of Art and Architecture is a binary one in which Western culture has developed its perception of museum and exhibition. The dimension of Art is prioritised over the Architecture and hence, the experience of the art is prioritised over the function of the space. Steven Holl’s Bloch Building (1999-2007) in Kansas City, Missouri attempts to deconstruct this prioritised system and create a binary difference, where new meaning is created through the phenomenological experience of both Art and Architecture. Holl understands the challenge of ‘extension’ as an opportunity to produce new meaning by creating a binary difference of two built forms. By contrasting the original beaux-arts style Nelson-Atkins museum of Art (1933 Wight & Wight) with five “irregularly shaped boxes of translucent glass”[23] that form the Bloch Building, traditional perceptions of museum and exhibition are deconstructed through the binary difference of Art and Architecture. The Bloch Building can be understood through Deconstruction by analysing concepts of his phenomenological philosophy, including intertwining of idea and phenomena, anchoring, and the body in space.
Holl’s concept of intertwining idea and phenomena in the Bloch Building deconstructs the traditional perception of Art. The generative idea in the Bloch Building is understood as “complementary contrasts,” expressed through the metaphor of “the stone and the feather.”[24] Contrasting the Nelson-Atkins Building and the Bloch Building as the stone and the feather respectively, highlights specific relationships that are indicative of their architectural make-up. Namely, “heavy and light, opacity and transparency, stable and dynamic.”[25] This is instrumental in the architectural fabrication through choices concerning spaces, light, form, landscape and materials.”[26] The resulting fragmented built forms are described as ‘lenses’; receptacles for light that create luminous space in the galleries below.
Figure 2: The lenses illuminated at night[27]
The fluctuation of light and shadow within these spaces allow for varying perceptions of the artworks through a new form of exhibition. In this sense, perception of Art in the Bloch Building is relative to time of day and the environmental conditions. The use of artificial light has an inverse affect during night when natural light is absent, as the exterior is illuminated by fluorescent tubes it appears to glow (fig.2). As abstracted forms, Murray suggests they appear as “large-scale sculptures in their own right.”[28] Light in this sense deconstructs the binary of Art and Architecture by prioritizing experience over function allowing new forms of exhibition to be perceived.
Anchoring is an integral concept in the Bloch Building that deconstructs the perception of form to emphasize the difference of the existing with the new. The connection of “building, site and situation” is integral in the design of the Bloch Building, where the seemingly separate five lenses are in fact “one, continuous… long structure” through lower volumes below ground (fig.3).
Figure 3: Structural organization of the Bloch building, illusion of separation[29]
Suzanne Stephens suggest the irregular polyhedral forms “look like so many icebergs threatening to sink” the symmetrical form of the Nelson-Atkins Museum[30]. Holl is deferring the perception of the built form by disguising structure to present a more abstract form. By contrast, the existing is a fully realized form with ornamental decoration familiar to the perceiver. Understanding the program of the Bloch Building is further obscured by the “double-skin glass-wall system”[31] that filters light into the galleries below. In contrast to the patina of the limestone façade adjacent to the Bloch Building, the interlocked, opaque channel-glass planks are unyielding to the elements. Juhani Pallasmaa regards glass as a timeless surface, where the “material essence or age” is never conveyed.[32] The horizontal aluminium elements that support these planks are staggered so the floorplates aren’t legible and in turn the form is further abstracted. Anchoring in this sense is an important concept that allows the juxtaposition between the two built forms to produce new meaning, where the lenses are perceived as sculpture rather than building. Hence, the binary of Art and Architecture is reversed through this phenomenological concept.
Another concept used by Holl in the Bloch Building is the body and space, which attempts to deconstruct traditional perceptions of circulation in museums. Nicolai Ouroussoff describes the sense of being “herded through… galleries by an invisible hand” in traditional galleries due to the predetermined, linear path.[33] As a free public building, access is possible through a variety of entrances, this creates an indeterminacy of circulation that encourages movement internally and externally, creating a variety of perspectives of the existing, the new and the sculptural garden. (fig. 5). For Kenneth Frampton, traditional museum entrances suffer as the plan “no longer follows a unique ceremonial route”[34], Holl deconstructs this traditional perception to create new opportunities to circulate and engage with the space. Addressing the perception of Art within internal spaces, Holl creates a fluid spatiality through the concept of parallax.
Figure 4: External circulation diagram in relation to views and forms[35]
Overlapping a “dynamic succession of perspectives”[36] experienced from a moving body is essential for Holl in deconstructing traditional perceptions of experience. Borrowing from Le Corbusier, a ‘promenade architecturle’ that begins in the atrium of the first lens (fig. 5) deconstructs traditional notions of circulation in museums.[37] As the body moves along “the x-y-z dimension,” perspectives of “phenomenal flux” are created.[38]
Figure 5: The first lens gallery space circulation, Holl’s Promenade Architecturale[39]
In a similar way the traditional ceiling, wall junction is deconstructed through structural element below ground described as “fluttering T’s,” which “direct, defect and blend the natural light” within the below ground spaces, creating more fluid spaces with their curved surfaces (fig.1). Ronnie Self suggests these are not “at the service of Art,” rather something to experience independently of the Art.[40] For Holl creating a variety of perspectives for a moving body deconstructs traditional perceptions of movement, and thus new experiences are created.
Subjectivity
Ultimately, the condition of experience is subjective to the perceiver. Merleau-Ponty describes this through his concept of “lived-space.”[41] He suggests that lived experience of the past influences the way in which meaning is perceived in the present. Furthermore, the lived experience is the foundation for subjectivity and through the intricacy of experience different interpretations are perceived[42]. In this sense, creating subjective interpretations can result in endless meanings being understood through the different experiences of a space. In relation to the binary of Art and Architecture in the Bloch Building, perception is entirely subjective and the deconstructive concepts employed aim to create a variety of meaning through subjective experience. Therefore, Holl’s Architecture can be interpreted as deconstructive as meaning is continually displaced through the subjective nature of individual experience.
The relationship of the subject to Architecture is an important one, which in contemporary society is often undermined and ignored. When the worth of Architecture is measured by is financial value, the role of the Architect becomes meaningless, and thus the resulting Architecture is devoid of meaning also. Only through experience can meaning be produced. It is evident that the philosophy of Steven Holl attempts to elevate the importance of phenomenal experience in his Architecture, and thus create new meaning within it.
The analysis of Derrida’s theory suggested that Western culture was built on metaphysical tradition that prioritized primal dimensions and suppressed binary difference. He suggests through binary difference, a continuum of alternate interpretations can occur. Considering Steven Holl’s Phenomenological philosophy in relation to Deconstruction, it is suggested that the concepts by which he thinks and designs can be interpreted as deconstructive. These concepts when analysed with respect to the Bloch Building highlights the deconstruction of traditional perceptions toward the typology of the museum, and Art and Architecture more broadly. Intertwining of idea and phenomena deconstructs the perception of how Art is viewed, and how architecture can be perceived as Art. The concept of anchoring deconstructs the traditional perception of form, deferring meaning through the abstracted form. Similarly the concept of the body in space deconstructs the perception of circulation and how parallax creates phenomenal experience. Analysing these concepts has suggested that the Bloch Building deconstructs metaphysical perceptions by questioning the prioritized system of Art over Architecture, specifically in relation to function and experience. In this regard, the Bloch Building can be perceived as both Art and Architecture relative to the experience. Therefore, the perception of meaning is considered subjective, and dependent on the past and present individual experience of the perceiver. Steven Holl’s Architecture can be understood as deconstructive, as meaning is continually displaced through the subjectivity of experience. Deconstructing traditional perceptions in a Phenomenological sense, creates an Architecture where experience is valued and new meaning is produced.
LIST OF CITATIONS (BIBLIOGRAPHY)
[1] Holl, Steven. Questions of Perception: Phenomenology of Architecture. San Francisco: William Stout Publishers, 1994. Pg.41
[2] Self, Ronnie. The Architecture of Art Museums, A decade of design: 2000-2010. Abingdon: Routledge, 2014. Pg.122
[3] Sturrock, John, and Justin Wintle. “Post-Structuralism.” In Structuralism, 122-143. London: Paladin, 1986. Pg.123
[4] Patterson, Thomas C. “Post-Structuralism, Post-Modernism: Implications for Historians.” Social History 14 (1), 1989. Pg.84
[5] Frampton, Kenneth. Modern Architecture: A Critical History. 4th. London: Thames & Hudson, 2007. Pg.313
[6] Mugerauer, Robert. “Derrida and Beyond.” Theorizing a New Agenda for Architecture: An Anthology of Architectural Thoery 1965-1995. New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1996. Pg.185
[7] Ibid.
[8] Patterson, Thomas C. “Post-Structuralism, Post-Modernism: Implications for Historians.” Social History 14 (1), 1989. Pg.85
[9] Mugerauer, Robert. “Derrida and Beyond.” Theorizing a New Agenda for Architecture: An Anthology of Architectural Thoery 1965-1995. New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1996. Pg.185
[10] Mugerauer, Robert. “Derrida and Beyond.” Theorizing a New Agenda for Architecture: An Anthology of Architectural Thoery 1965-1995. New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1996. Pg.188
[11] Wigley, Mark. The architecture of deconstruction Derrida’s haunt. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1993. Pg.35
[12] Derrida and beyond pg.189
[13] Merleau-Ponty, Maurice. Phenomenology of Perception, trans. by Colin Smith, London: Routledge and Kegan, 1962. Pg.IX
[14] Holl, Steven. Anchoring, New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1989. Pg.10
[15] Holl, Steven. “Twofold Meaning.” Oz, 1998. Pg.16
[16] Merleau-Ponty, Maurice. The Visible and the Invisible, Claude Lefort and Alphonso Lingis (eds.), translated by Hazel E. Barnes, USA: Northwestern University Press, 1968. Pg.138
[17] Boumen, O. and Toorn van R,. “On the Work of Steven Holl: Under, In, On and Over the Earth,” The Invisible in Architecture, London: Academy Editions, Berlin: Ernst&Sohn, 1994. Pg.92
[18] Holl, Steven. Anchoring, New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1989. Pg.41
[19] Merleau-Ponty, Maurice. Phenomenology of Perception, trans. by Colin Smith, London: Routledge and Kegan, 1962. Pg.292
[20] Holl, Steven. Parallax. New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 2000. Pg.38
[21] Holl, Steven. Intertwining, New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1998. Pg.12
[22] Self, Ronnie. The Architecture of Art Museums, A decade of design: 2000-2010. Abingdon: Routledge, 2014. Pg.120
[23] Ouroussoff, Nicolai. “A Translucent and Radiant Partner with the Past.” The New York Times Architecture Review, June 5, 2007. Pg.2
[24] Self, Ronnie. The Architecture of Art Museums, A decade of design: 2000-2010. Abingdon: Routledge, 2014. Pg.122
[25] Self, Ronnie. The Architecture of Art Museums, A decade of design: 2000-2010. Abingdon: Routledge, 2014. Pg.122
[26] Ibid. 122
[27] Ibid. 120
[28] Murray, Scott. Contemporary curtain wall architecture. New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 2009. Pg.200
[29] Diagram by author
[30] Stephens, Suzanne. “Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art.” Architectural Record 195 (7), 2007. 92.
[31] Murray, Scott. Contemporary curtain wall architecture. New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 2009. Pg.200
[32] Pallasmaa, Juhani. “An Architecture of the Seven Senses.” In Questions of Perception, by Steven Holl, Juhani Pallasmaa and Alberto Perez-Gomez. San Francisco: William Stout Publishers, 2007. Pg.29
[33] Ouroussoff, Nicolai. “A Translucent and Radiant Partner with the Past.” The New York Times Architecture Review, June 5, 2007. Pg.4
[34] Frampton, Kenneth. Modern Architecture: A Critical History. 4th. London: Thames & Hudson, 2007. Pg.381
[35] Diagram by author
[36] Holl, Steven. “Pre-theoretical Ground,” The Steven Holl Catalogue, Zurich: Artemis and ArcenReve Centre d’Architecture, 1993. Pg.22
[37] Stephens, Suzanne. “Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art.” Architectural Record 195 (7), 2007. 92.
[38] Ibid.
[39] Self, Ronnie. The Architecture of Art Museums, A decade of design: 2000-2010. Abingdon: Routledge, 2014. Pg.123
[40] Self, Ronnie. The Architecture of Art Museums, A decade of design: 2000-2010. Abingdon: Routledge, 2014. Pg.130
[41] Merleau-Ponty, Maurice. Phenomenology of Perception, trans. by Colin Smith, London: Routledge and Kegan, 1962. Pg.334
[42] Merleau-Ponty, Maurice. Phenomenology of Perception, trans. by Colin Smith, London: Routledge and Kegan, 1962. Pg.286
I M R . D N A 