Vana Tentokali School of Architecture. Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. Greece 77
1986-2006 (Tentokali 2005). Complementary in their content, since these courses, refer-
ring to the unified educational process of the architectural design, have a focal point of
difference, which stems from their by definition location in the two oppositional verges
of the architectural design process: the first course contains among other things the
core of the theoretical starting point, eg. theory, while the second course the core of
the practical application, eg. composition. Both of them deal with the unified process
of the architectural design whose one of the verges is its theoretical starting point, eg
theory, and the other its practical application, eg composition. That is why architectural
design, while explored theoretically, tends to its practical application.
All the concepts mentioned above constitute two fundamental “pre-assumptions”, con-
tradictory in their basis, on which the content of the presented educational process of
architectural design is laid on. These are:
- The first pre-assumption: On one hand, the spatial object, the building, is considered
as a “text” and the process of the architectural design, as a “syntax” procedure. On
the other, the identity of gender is considered as a “text” and the process of its social
construction as “syntax” procedure. - The second pre-assumption: The spatial object, the building, as a theoretical concep-
tion, but also the identity of the gender are structured (constructed) socially and
culturally.
The branch of perspectives adapted by the presented educational architectural design
experiment is referring to the notion of "undoing". This notion belongs to the same
conceptual category with the notions of “de-stabilization”, “de-formation”, “de-com-
position”, “de-construction”. In her thorough examination of Derrida’s Dissemination,
Barbara Johnson argues that particularly with the latter, its relation is of a synonym:
the verb “’to un-do’ is a virtual synonym for ‘to de-construct’” (Johnson 1981, xiv). Thus
the notion of “undoing” can easily appertain to the existing discourse of the leading
figures of the deconstructivistic architecture, such as B.Tschumi, P.Eisenman, Z.Hadid,
F.Gehry, D.Libeskind and others. Without sharing with them any of the declarations
for "a diachronic rightness” and without being identified exclusively with any of their
work, this experimental process of architectural design considers it as an endless source
of exploration, reference, understanding and critique. The notion of "undoing" (from
all the above perspectives) is identif ied as a route of being aware and conscious, not
only of the terms, concepts, ideas, meanings and images involved in the architectural
design, but mainly and more importantly, of its own process.
From this particular aspect, as “a route of being aware and conscious” within a working
frame of the interpretation of Derrida’s Deconstruction into architecture, concerning
mainly the process of architectural design, the notion of “undoing” is offered as a gen-
erating process. This statement is based on Benedict’s argument that “the philosophy of
deconstruction is generative” (Benedict 1991, 9). In a few words, it can be argued that
as a generative process the notion of “undoing” absorbs. The real question consequently
here asked is what and when the notion of “undoing” absorbs.