They're both highly stylistic, elaborate, decadent, self-indulgent, and expressionistic, so I'd say there's a strong basis for comparison between the two.

I have this paper to do about this subject, and i am asked to show this comparison. Mainly through sketches, or comparing pics, that explain my thoughts.
I havent read a lot about architectural theory, i just started understanding derrida so i 'd appreciate any help.
What are the opposites between them?

Any examples that come to mind that i could compare?
Eisenman and tschumi are the architects i will refer to as deconstructionists.


 

shit kid. you got troubles.

why not do something different. get the moma decon show catalogue, stare at the gehry images for a good long time and then stare at some carlo maderno for a good long time and figure out how they're different and get past all the cliche views on decon and baroque. i doubt you have the time to read 40 pages of grammatology or to read riegls origins of the baroque or to wrestle with the notion of style in general, but beyond your paper, thats the reading list id recommend. best of luck.

"why not do something different. get the moma decon show catalogue, stare at the gehry images for a good long time and then stare at some carlo"

nice suggestion spike,will do that. I am more focused on eisenman or tschumi or both but i will check theese out.

I am meant to find differences or similarities based on : typology, blueprints, layering, use of space, symmetry, mirrors, or how they react on their surroundings. And how we pass from one to the other.

You are right i dont have the time to read all that and its not so needed since i am meant to write up to 10 pages n concentrate on pictures contrast. So what ideas you have about the above criteria?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQFEaAUrfAk

"i just started understanding derrida"

Turn back now before it's too late!

hahaha i know i know luckily i have a limit on burning my brain.!
i wont bother with him a lot i have my info on tschumi(basically) and eisenman but still not much on the comparison to baroque..

Great link vado. A tremendous example of the kind of absolute bullshit that passes for architectural thought in universities today. Eisenmann is one of the premier gasbags.

I think there might be potential for an interesting compare-contrast between Borromini's Sant Ivo and some of Eisenman's houses. House III jumps to mind. Sure the man's a dick and then some, but if you have to write about him, I don't recommend that video as research for this paper.

ps. Any Bernini sculpture over a Gehry building any day.

 

threadkilla, those names don't  belong on the same page, let alone in the same sentence.

Maybe the way to think about it is in the context of the development of the styles:

Renaissance          -            Modern                                               Mies

Mannerism              -            Post-modern classicism                Graves

Baroque                   -            De-constructivism                            Tschumi

Rococo                     -            Expressionism (?)                           Gehry

Each subsequent  development involved the re-working of the elements of the architectural language introduced in the establishing movement.

One might argue that the Po-Mo Classicism period wasn't precisely analogous as it included the suppression of  Modernist expression; I would counter that the classicizing trend was ironic, (see: Giulio Romano, Palazzo Del Te). As a Professor once put it, it was "Mod -Arch in drag."

Time to man the lifeboats.

What exactly is meant by "the establishing movement"?

the establishing movements in rossi's post are renaissance, mannerism, baroque, and roco-coo coo.

Are you suggesting that Gehry is a re-working of Tschumi, Tschumi is a re-working of Graves, and Graves is a re-working of Mies?

no they re-worked the establishing movement (pick any earlier movement and use it to make your argument)

They're both highly stylistic, elaborate, decadent, self-indulgent, and expressionistic, so I'd say there's a strong basis for comparison between the two.

Not nitpicking on gwharton specifically..

But architects generally need to remember that literacy in the West is a 20th-century phenomenon. 

Baroque architecture, along with all other offshoots of neoclassicism, has a built in cultural and visual language that communicates a number of ideas, norms and stories through its use of religious iconography, hierarchical representation and secular and or region-specific visual arts.

There's also the spiritual aspect— not necessarily in the organized religious sense— that the builders and dwellers of these types of buildings were extremely superstitious and used architecture as an act of divination. They believed the inclusion or exclusion of various iconography could manipulate the fate and future of the inhabitants and related parties. 

So you're suggesting the Rennaissance established Modernism, Mannerism established Post-Modern Classicism, the Baroque established De-constructivism, and Rococo established Expressionism?

no, they're parallel movements in history.

So you're suggesting Mies re-worked the Rennaissance and thus Modernism came to be, Graves re-worked Mannerism and Post-Moden Classicism came to be, Tschumi re-worked the Baroque and De-constructivism came to be, and Gehry re-worked Rococo and Expressionism came to be?

i wouldn't literally suggest that.  more like pomo reacted to modernism similar to mannerism to renaissance.  you can get out your b.s. and tie anything together ..

ah come on, Q!  you of all people know history repeats itself .. like every year there is a January 23, and a January 24, and a January 25, and so on.  connections are everywhere, you just have to make the argument (which was the initial post: do decon and baroque have common points and common oppositions?  the simplistic answer is 'yes'.  now i'm not gonna write the guy[/gal]'s paper so [s]he's gotta dig a little deeper and write about those architectural connections and non-connections).

'... but, other than that, history actually repeating itself is not a regular or even common occurrence.'

other than the morning of 9/11 history doesn't repeat?  come ON!  history repeats all the time, Q.  reactions, cycles, trends, etc. etc. it's not always new and there's almost always a precedent in, well, just about everything.

"History does not repeat itself, but it does rhyme a lot."  - Mark Twain

"History repeats itself, first as tradgedy, second as farce." -- Karl Marx

Anyone care to provide some actual examples of history repeating itself?

crazy people making assassination attempts on public figures

Military empires (Rome, USA).

If you read Oswald Spengler's Decline of the West, you'll find lots of historic examples. The pattern of the decay and implosion of democratic regimes is especially repetitive throughout history. That history used to be very well known before it was suppressed as anti-American about 80 or so years ago. It's one of the main reasons why the Founding Fathers of the USA were so anti-democracy despite their revolutionary tendencies. They were very keen on preventing democracy from taking hold in the US. Of course, they utterly failed to do so.

As for more recent repetitions, the Federal Reserve at present seems to be almost exactly repeating the errors made by first by the Bank of England in the 1920s & 1930s, then the Bank of Japan in the 1980s & 1990s, with predictable results. The only major difference is one of degree: the Fed doing exactly the same things, but lots and lots more of them.

i would not say there is a similarity in type or nature but the similarity could be more in the transition from an awareness of an established tectonic/ formal tradition to a post-tradition hyperawareness; what i mean is that the successful tradition was raised to the level of the subject matter of expression rather than remaining a medium of expression. and along with that, secondary and derivative features became as significant if not moreso. the lines of the renaissance gemetry bound by the completess of their frames, by coherent centripetal force fields. whereafter,  the baroque force fields were set against each other forcing lines to slip tangentially between one and the other, opening up the frame. of course not a parallel by nature to deconstructivism and russian constructivism. but... the growth of a  paradigm from a syntagm and the unsettling of the tension inherent to the former sensibility that then incur the dynamism of the latter one are not inconceivable as  bridging themes. i would say that this is more literally true in the case of  deconstructivism; the dynamism was self evident (self signifying, that is) and calculatedly cathartic.  however, baroque was  obviously much more successfully extensive in domain and in its reign. i think deconstructivism came at a time when we had a very retrospective idea of forcing the "zeitgeist" upon itself. very typical in our then increasingly capitalist world (i dont think it is possible to be increasingly so anymore, after the 80s and 90s of the last century). there are no more actual movements after minimalism and deconstructivism, in my opinion. we now have individual architects and architectural firms. even in music, after atonality and minimalism, there are just composers.

quondam, i was not thinking interiorly of particular projects as much as their puported grouping and that umbrella term formulized by way of eisenman, johnson, wigley and the famous exhibition...whereafter the aesthetics of deconstructivism gleamed as the surface sheen on the dark waters of deconstructionism (where relevant)..or perhaps the other way around? this is why i wrote "zeitgeist" in inverted commas. it was a hyped forced reading spreading like a blot of ink in water.

wanting to adapt a sensibility that did not lie within architecture and resulting in an architecture that speaks of itself and - therefore- forms its own obstacles and formally enhanced with the derivative semiotics of ruptures, skewing, deformation (hence the names "asymptote" and "morphosis") - derived from the fertile tension of russian constructivism and compatible movements.  

but then, to take up your challenge...zeitgeist  forcing itself upon itself, architecturally (or zeitgeist architecture forcing itself upon itself)...amongst other eisenman projects, the infamous eiseneman house VI that gets in its own way, structurally and therfore literally... the paradoxical  deployment of abstractions in a literal 'encryptive' way (the architectural void standing for the voiding of jewry in europe in libeskind's jewish musuem/ void lying at the heart of post-holocaust european jewry - or the zigzag purportedly derived from the structure of a schoenberg opera..(zeitgeist forcing itself upon architecture)...its an interesting route to take; well its an attempt

thank you all for your help!! your opinions are all very interesting. finally I have decided to analyze and compare tschumi park de la villete and saint peter's square. how do you think of that choise?

Incorrect.

There correct phrasing is:

What d'yall think 'bout that, bitches?

time to stop caring about peoples opinions and use their faces as ladder rungs.

kidding about the ladder rungs bit, really I am.

faces are for kisses.

this is how I feel most days.

then some asshole reminds me im blind.

and that my last name aint wonder.

Baroque is a challenge to Classicism, as Deconstructivism to Structualism....

They're both highly stylistic, elaborate, decadent, self-indulgent, and expressionistic, so I'd say there's a strong basis for comparison between the two.

True, except that deconstructivism isn't rooted in anything, and thus original, whereas Baroque is a consequence of Renaissance architecture, and rooted in it.  Most deconstructivism is nauseating to many people, including myself, while Baroque features impeccable craftsmanship that couldn't be replicated today, and thus is something at which people marvel.

The biggest turd in existence, somewhere in DelMarVa, I believe, but please save that Buick Riviera in the foreground, to the left:

http://blog.onpaperwings.com/uploaded_images/sitebest1-777866.jpg

On the other hand, something to sit in front of and study, with a tasty gelato in hand - the cathedral for one of Sicily's major cities:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9d/Catania_BW_2012-10-06_11-32-08_2_fj.JPG/800px-Catania_BW_2012-10-06_11-32-08_2_fj.JPG

Fundamentally, Deconstructivism and the Baroque couldn't be more different.  They are completely at odds with each other philosophically, of course.  The core purpose of Baroque classicism is to create beauty.  The core purpose of Deconstructivism is to disturb and unsettle - to nauseate, as Observant notes in his post.

BTW, I don't agree that the craftsmanship used in the original Baroque buildings can't be done today - there are many contemporary classical architects executing buildings today using traditional materials in the same way as the early Baroque masters.  There absolutely are craftsman capable of doing this.

Right, there are craftspeople who could do this today, but they are relatively rare and true specialists.

I always equate Renaissance buildings with more rectilinear and perfectly spherical forms, either as wholes or parts.  In Baroque, different geometries, such as ellipses/ovals and "whiplash curves" were introduced, as was more elaborate, yet orderly, ornamentation.  Baroque is also dispersed in Europe and has regional variations.  I can't vouch for all its locations, but it can be found in southern Italy, northern Italy, Portugal, France, Austria, and Germany's Bavaria.  If in Spain, it must be their own unique derivation, and there is some heavy-handed ecclesiastical architecture in Spain of which I am not a fan.