P E O P L E     P L A C E         P E R T I N E N T 

Deconstructionist Views

Deconstruction refers to the confrontation of harmony, stability and unity. Therefore, this concept challenges the structure of a building’s spatial property.[13] Deconstructivists focus on deconstructing ‘naïve’ hypotheses about realities and buildings, posing arguments regarding the metaphysics of one.[14] The core theory, which will be discussed, is that of metaphysics. Simply put, ‘metaphysics is the philosophy focusing on the nature of being and that we are in the constant state of becoming.’[15] Philosophers such as Jacques Derrida and Peter Eisenman helped shape the deconstructivism theorems, as well as influence Libeskind’s design tactics. Therefore, these philosophers are an important key when referring to the Jewish Museum, as this too has been described as a building that is always ‘becoming’, but not suggestive of a final resolution[16]. Libeskind is actively known to be interested in Derrida’s theories in deconstruction. In particular, arguments such as ‘…meaning is infinitely deferred and that there exists no extra linguistic beginning or end’ resonate well with this concept[17] Additionally, Libeskind has his own philosophies when regarding deconstructivism and refers heavily to absence and presence as well as metaphysics within his work.

Displacement

The intention behind the Jewish Museum was to create a space in which a representation of the Jewish presence in the German history could be made apparent.[18] Libeskind would integrate his philosophical theories, in particular focusing on terms such as metaphysics and the use of presence and absence within his designs. Firstly, Libeskind would acknowledge the culture surrounding the events that took place. According to Derrida, ‘culture and the built environment form a fundamental binary difference’.[19] Therefore, it is the culture, which makes the demand of the built environment a possibility whilst also being a response to culture. Furthermore, one must understand the built environment as a displacement and as a disruptive positioning of difference. In particular, that of cultural presence and interpret from this a process to deconstructing the relation of culture and buildings.[20] Eisenman also argues that ‘reality is what we reassemble after dissembling the illusion of the beliefs, stories and norms of the traditional past.’[21] This statement reinforces the argument that an event of the past will create an opportunity for culture to be appreciated and reformed in the reality. Libeskind utilises this design motive by using the stories of the traditional past as a tool to haunt the metaphysical space.

The important repositioning of displacement is to contrast the relationship between binary terms and challenge the binary pair. In particular, the theory of the ‘signified/signifier’, whereby the signified is prioritised as the objective and inspirational reality, whilst the signifier follows lead and is dependent is utilised. Derrida emphasises that the signified can also be referred to as absent, which is different from the signifier, which is present. Therefore this theory reiterates that the ‘traditionally subservient term becomes the dominant one for interpretation of the other, and différance is momentarily emphasised.’  Derrida refers to the différance as the fundamental pairing of binary definitions. For example, presence and absence or being and beings are suppressed by metaphysics. He highlights that différance is a primitive concept, however it has neither origin nor end and is therefore constantly moving. This subsequently helps support Eisenman’s argument surrounding deconstructive architecture, as an advance through a continuation of dislocations. In doing so, this architecture produces ‘a place that is no place, no object, no shelter and that has no scale, no time.’[22]

Libeskind describes his design as a shared product between being and what is the polar opposite of being. He states that it is “not only about space, not only an existential continuum, but also something completely other than text, completely other than construction, completely other than knowledge. It is not only about existence but also about inexistence.”[23] This direct quote from Libeskind allows us to understand that he is not interested in creating something that can be understood as just a physical being, but rather as a displacement of time. Libeskind understands Derrida’s theories about différance and also believes that because time is constantly moving there is no origin or ‘original point of departure’. Therefore, nothing seems to have taken place. Instead of searching for an origin, Libeskind skips beginnings altogether and finds himself in the middle of time, in this case The Jewish Museum. His reasoning for skipping beginnings can be justified by the following statement, ‘one realises that when one is looking at time, time is not playing along, time is not visible so to speak, because one is looking for it.’[24] Libeskind further states that the ‘torn pieces of history never pre-existed as a whole’. Therefore, it is the distance between that historical event and the present, brought about by history, which can only be experienced as an absence or a time that is no longer here.[25] Derrida also conquers when he states that ‘there is no transcendental reality or meaning and thus these privileged dimensions only feign sovereignty.’[26] Libeskind represents this argument, as his museum is acknowledged as a displacement of events that took place and therefore create a metaphysical presence. He even furthers his views by referring to Berlin and explaining that it ‘is not only a physical place, but also something in the mind, something belonging to a past which never was present.’[27]

Libeskind critically analyses the social and cultural aspects at hand, as he has been given the intense task of representing the Holocaust and integrating the cultural aspects within his design. Libeskind believed that the Jewish Museum should be experienced and accessed metaphysically to the people of the past, present and future.[28] Metaphysics explores the idea of constantly being in a state of becoming and argues that one will never be in the state of ‘being’, but always in the transit stage of becoming. Deconstructivists believe that architecture similarly follows suit and therefore is never in its final true form, being, but is always becoming. Derrida further argues this point stating that all that is left is interpretation of a place to create experience. This is achievable through maintaining an open interpretation of what is in its physical form and never having an expectation of arriving to something that is in its final state, or its true interpretation.[29] This quintessentially gives significance to the experience of the occupant, as it is up to them to decipher their own interpretation of the metaphysical presence. Consequently, the experience of the occupants was of high importance to Libeskind, as he understood that each person should be able to identify a shared hope, whilst still acknowledging their individual desires.[30] Libeskind’s philosophical theorems are apparent when he stresses that his intentions are to create a space, which is not only an architectural site and therefore, a physical form. But he also wants a spiritual site, something that can only be experienced past the physical dimension.[31] He believes the museum should home ‘the ordered - disordered, the welcome - unwelcome, the chosen – not chosen, the vocal which is silent,’[32] whilst also being a physical home to the conventional museum ideals. The conventional museum ideals include physical cultural artefacts, such as the poetry, music and drama of a society.[33]

Absence and the Voids

MacArthur describes deconstruction in architecture as an experience of absence.[34] Therefore it can be argued that Libeskind, a deconstructivist himself, uses this tactic throughout his design to represent the atrocity surrounding the events of the Holocaust. Absence and void is an architectural expression, when trying to depict a loss or trauma in the physical form.[35]

Libeskind refers to the ‘void’ throughout his work, both in the metaphorical and physical sense. In the metaphorical definition, he describes the void as the loss of the Jews through the Holocaust, and how that has consequently removed the Jewish presence in Berlin.[36] He argues that although there is a slight physical presence of the Jewish culture remaining within Berlin, this is considered an evocation of absence rather than that of presence. Thus, leading one to argue that the Libeskind’s design is built solely on the ‘absence of meaning in history, an absence of the people who would have given meaning to their history.’[37] The void, which is referred to by James E Young as the self inflicted void in the centre of Germany, is more apparent when Germans try to formalise it, then literally used in the centre of Libeskind’s design.

Consequently, Libeskind’s design is simplified into a metaphorical meaning of the absence of the Jewish presence. In doing so, he places physical voids in the centre of the building and builds a museum around it. However, Libeskind’s design is much more deliberate than that, as he has placed the void in the hands of the occupant and powerfully demands the public to experience it. This reiterates the detail that deconstruction in architecture demands an ‘experience with absence’.[38] Therefore, the design relies heavily on human interaction or absence of the space to give it its importance. Without this human interaction, the building is not ‘becoming’ and therefore loses the deconstructive intentions that Libeskind has purposefully employed. The museum form requires the passive involvement of the visitor in order to be experienced in its full glory.[39] It should also be noted that it is not the building that represents Libeskind’s architecture, but rather the spaces within the building which have been represented through the voids and absence.[40] MacArthur states that it seems to be ‘irresistible to give a significance, even a presence, to absence.’ [41] Consequently, one can argue that Libeskind successfully gives presence to the absence, in this particular instance the Jewish. He does so by fundamentally capturing the Jewish history in Berlin as a focal point, especially after the devastating World War II, which has left a haunting feeling surrounding the Jewish presence and memory. [42]

To summarise, it can be concluded that Libeskind’s Jewish Museum in Berlin successfully uses deconstructivist philosophies to build a museum with an underlying purpose. Libeskind employs Derrida’s philosophy of meaning and creates a building that does not have an origin or beginning. However, this piece of architecture is constantly juxtaposed in the ‘becoming’. He further develops Eisenman’s theories of absence and literally takes the absence of the Jewish community to utilise as the foundation for his museum by building it surrounding literal voids. By employing both of these theories to his design, Libeskind does not only create a museum for one to experience the physical realm of what has been strategically placed, but also creates a metaphysical experience. One in which the visitor is affected by the haunting and traumatic metaphysics of the building, in which they feel empathy and are deeply affected by the historical events that took place. After all, that is what Libeskind wants: for you to feel the presence of the absent, whilst also acknowledging the historical events and cultural impact of this tragedy. However, perhaps most significantly Libeskind wishes for each visitor to acknowledge this is not the final ‘being’ of the building, just the ‘becoming’.