Zaha’s outlandish drive for architectural diversity continues to set precedent for a new motivation in architecture. One which itself came from almost two decades of architectural experimentation leading to revolution. In a similar way to which Deconstructivism sprung as a reaction to Russian Constructivism, catalysed by the philosophy of Jacque Derrida, architects now have a genre on their palette which is slowly refining itself for the benefit of architectural form. Has Zaha, being one of many key players, entered us into the world of Neo-Deconstructivism?
Being able to progress from deconstruction surely opens a new page in post-structuralist architectural theory and design. Not necessarily deconstructing the deconstruction, as some might argue that’s the point of deconstruction in the first place. However, it is evident that architectural technology and construction has developed since the birth of Deconstructivism in the 1980s-90s. So, in a world with new ways and means to bend, cut, form, morph, extract, boolean? architecture can further refine itself. This same world also creates an environment where architectural representation can thrive, whether it’s through 3D printing, 3D modelling, rendering, animation, drones?
Echoing the words of Mark Wigley, “Deconstruction is, at best, a strange structural condition, an ongoing structural event, a continuous displacement of structure that cannot be evaluated in traditional terms because it is the very frustration of those terms” (Wigley, 1995), what happens when this process becomes catalysed with money and new technology? Possibly a new, more focused approach to deconstruction? Nevertheless, a speculation has been triggered.
Has neo-deconstruction begun?