Research Paper on:
Deconstructivism and Contemporary Architects

Unformatted Sample Text from the Research Paper:
who study the subject, who argue that new approaches are perhaps unnecessary in the ancient understanding of architecture. They label these new thinkers as deconstructivists. But, those who are labeled  as such argue that they are not arguing for the deconstruction of architecture, but rather a group of people who are addressing "concerns and constructional tactics" (Himmelblau 269). With that  in mind the following paper examines what some authors have offered in terms of criteria for labeling one a deconstructivist. NOTE: The material provided is not cited in a bibliography  due to the fact that the articles were faxed and this particular writer does not have the bibliographic information. The Criteria In one section of the material provided  by the student we see that deconstruction is termed as follows: "Despite the abstraction of their devices, the Transcripts generally presuppose a reality already in existence, a reality waiting to  be deconstructed- and eventually transformed. They isolate, frame, take elements from the city" (Tschumi 278). Another author argues that architects today cannot rely on all of the old ways of  architecture, stating that "We can no longer fulfill our obligations as architects if we carry on as cake decorators. Our role is far greater than that" (Hadid 280). And, another,  who is apparently a proponent of deconstructivism as well, indicates that architecture, "is not a given or a physical fact. It has no History and it does not follow Fate"  (Libeskind 281). From these simple illustrations we see people arguing to the field of architecture about their being labeled as deconstructivists. They do not believe that what they are  doing is necessary deconstructing the field of architecture, but rather taking it to the next level. What they are doing is taking what has already existed and moving it to