MORPHOGENESIS OF SPACE -A READING OF SEMIOTICS IN ARCHITECTURE

C. Sanem ERSİNE MASATLIOĞLU

Okan University

Abstract
The aim of this paper is to investigate the notion of architectural design as a tool for communication
throughout a discussion on its emergent form.
Herewith concerned with the explanation of the signified in the signifier theoretically, there are questions
explored in this paper: Can the signifier relate to its spectators/users and environment? How does a
spatial design process, the context -if there is any- and function, i.e. the text represented in the structure
practically? Can the semiotic morphology mediate for the aesthetic and communicative experiences? Thus
this work focuses on critical case studies to find some answers.
Accordingly, in the light of philosophers Derrida, Deleuze, Guattari and Delanda, a cross-examination of a
wide range of architect-critics (Jencks, Tschumi, Eisenman, Prix, Koolhaas, etc.) from different perspectives
is made here. To acquire a clarified investigation about the history of post-modern morphogenesis in
relations to semiotics; modern, structualist, poststructualist and deconstructionist approaches are
enrolled in the first chapter. The second chapter focuses on the morphology animated by designers’
underlying theories. Previous and contemporary approaches of so called Deconstructivists are brought
into the discussion to mark some transitions and oppositions in about fifty years. Several rigorous debates
on some cases are quoted to see both the designers’ and the critics’ sides. To conclude, space turned into
a place –the morphogenesis process is to be interpreted. This work intends to open up new criticisms on
the relations of architectural theory and practice.
Keywords: space, morphology, post-modernism, semiotics.

1. Introduction
From the beginning of the postmodern era until our days, architectural form has been more than just an
external impression for specific designers who are influenced from philosophies on metaphysical
thoughts, being and meaning of materials, deconstructivism, etc. After all, they are esteemed as both
practicians and theorists. For them, the created form is more than just a symbolic image –put in Derridean
terms, the signifier has inner relations with the signified. Along with this, in any production of a spatial
organization, it is commonly accepted in the discipline that by this attempt aesthetic experience should be
harmonized with functional and social aims. One of the world famous contemporary architects Decq
(2004) emphasizes that designers challenge the complexity and profoundness of desire and pleasure more
than ever. Constantly improved technology allows contemporary architecture world to be more creative
than ever.
Against one of the pioneers of Modern Movement in design, Mies van der Rohe’s “Less is more”,
postmodern Venturi claims, “Less is a bore”. Dodged out of the deconstructivist label, Rem Koolhaas
screams, “More is more”, and his student Bjarke Ingels gathers everyone’s sympathy in recent years with
the motto “Yes is more”. Criticisms are criticized to get new criticisms. Architecture theories will increase
with the number of critics. The slogans does not matter to the everyday man without any interest in the
profession, to general users of the buildings we make, to the spectators who have to perceive the
buildings in their environments. However, actual critical approaches of architecture change with the world
and also change our world. So, we no longer ask what architecture is but what and how it does.
Yet, what is architecture? If we review the many definitions of architecture, according to the issue in this
paper, theorist Asghar Minai’s works are suitable references. As Minai (1989) puts it, architecture is a
communication between individuals, society and professionals, as a means of symbolic information
transmission.
So, how does architecture communicate? Here, the notion of communication is not reduced to only
architectural presentation –fundamentally we emphasize on representation. It is more likely the essence
of architecture; a holistic approach to creating an aesthetical and experiencial environment, from design
concepts to their representations in emergence. Architectural designs aim social, cultural, and political
action, assuming that the spectators/users accept the fact that design, which influences their experiences
and resultant actions, also has an ideological dimension.

2. New Avant-garde Architecture Theories and Practices

2.1 Semiotics in post-modern architecture
The radical changes in any creative discipline’s way of production are around the turning points of the
global order. Embracing many disciplines and being in close relations with science and philosophy,
architecture has always been in search for the unknown and new. Modernism is one of the most
important turning points in world history, finding new ways of using technology, refusing the traditions
completely, thereby creating new manifests -with its long-termed and global effect, maybe the most
important one. But first the critical situation of being anti-social and elitist, and then turning into a mass
production, creating soullessness and placelessness, alienated the movement from its first ideals.
Beginning from 1950’s, when the ideological castle of Modernism was destroyed, philosophical theory
semiology gained specific designers’ attention, followed by their own architectural theories developed.
Semiology aims to expose the actual meaning underneath the seeming order of artifacts scientifically;
similar to linguistics but it deals also with non-linguistic sign systems. Architectural artifacts referring
both to physical and metaphysical realms possess historical, present and futuristic codes. Therefore it
can be claimed that language in architecture unfolds from the design’s physical and metaphysical
structures. Language creates texts; architecture as a sensational language additionally has series of
subtexts through which we try to explore how the structure relates to the structured.
At the beginning of 1960’s, the reactions against modernism intensified. Hence, conceding this breaking
point as the beginning of the post-modern era, it is the arise of new avant-garde movements. In 1977,
American architectural theorist and designer Charles Jencks affected the architectural discourse deeply
with his book The Language of Postmodern Architecture. But the movement’s prominence architects like
Venturi, Graves, Johnson, Stirling etc. insisted so heavily to situate themselves in the opposite of
Modernism’s principles, that they barely created a new vision; they mostly produced historicist and
arbitrary masses. At the same time, the post-structuralists, who established their theories on linguistic
architecture in the trail of Saussure, but criticize structuralists, stood against the system of single meaning
and static sign. Winters (2007) explains this approach as refusing an absolutist interpretation, searching
for radical relativism. Meanings are always shifting and supported by other meanings.
Jencks suggest that language is above all sign systems; and like many verbal languages there are many
visual codes in architectural language. When we look at Jencks’ approach, we see that he reduces
semiology to visual codes, to the genesis of form one-to-one. He accepts semiology as the fundamental
science, and as the narration of cultural history in architecture –he comes up with the term
archisemiotics.
If it not one-to-one, on what level is the analogy of semiology and architecture? We see in one of Jencks’
later works, his artificial landscape The Garden of Cosmic Speculation, that he uses DNA, RNA, in general
the emergence of beings and cosmos as inspirations for his design. From his own narrations on this
project and recent art projects, we get that these expressive designs are tribute to science and nature. In
the Garden, does the spectators only experience the sculpture-like forms, unaware from the narration; or
do they fall in the enigma of the forms? If the answer is the primary, then the morphogenesis is only
slightly different from The Duck. (Images 1, 2)
At this point, it would be challenging to put Eisenman’ unrealized Frankfurt Biozentrum project forward. In
mid-1980’s, when computer aided design was rapidly improving, Eisenman’s search for a deep structure
evolved from freehand sketches to semi-automated 3D computational models. Eisenman’s point of
departure is not the parti but the morphological diagram. And from that time on his diagrams were able
to be rendered (Url-1). In the Biozentrum as the first one of these works, the architect interferes to the
computer program through giving it codes, he wrote a shape grammar from human DNA’s structure. With
interpreting the form created by this language, he structures and organizes the buildings. This -sort of in a
biomimetic way- analogy is considered as the pioneering deconstructionist approach. The semiotics here
is to not to unfold with ease. The symbols are not exposed, they are transformed (Image 3)
Similar to Jencks, Venturi used highly symbolic images in 1960’s made Vanna House. The almost
symmetrical form actually has Modernist traces; the windows, the chimney, and finishing materials. His
reinterpretation of classical pediment is maybe one of the most famous semiotic images of 20 th century
architectural history. (Image 4)
Like the two above, Stirling, a harshly criticized but still admired architect –there is even an annual RIBA
prize on his name-, created historically -in a way- compatible matters and forms. His most famous
work Neue Staatsgalerie is merely eclectic than creative. He used 19th century details and forms with old
materials like travertine, spiced the exterior and interior up with colorful industrial materials. It is the
same old traditional public space, same museum design only phisically more connected to the
environment. (Image5)
And on there’s the postmodern architects who used symbolism for political images, embodiments of
power and authority. Graves’s Portland Building show similar eclectic approaches of postmodern minds,
but with more commanding a physical world, creating a sense of unplesant power on the spectator,
leading to restrictive human interaction with the building, and restrict human activity itself. (Image 6)
At the poststructualist side of the Postmodernists, Coop Himmelb(l)au (1997) states that they stand
opposite the world of autocrats with the principles efficiency, economy and gain. Is it possible, it is to
discuss in the second part of the chapter. But we know that in the past and present, the designers of the
firm are in search for enriching and vitalizing public realm even in private or semi-public projects. (Image
7) They argued that we have to shake off the design and production efforts anchored to strict criticisms.
To be genuinely creative, they purified themselves from these concerns and made an assertive egression
with the manifest “Architecture must blaze”:
“…We are tired of seeing Palladio and other historical masks. Because with architecture, we don’t want to
exclude everything that is disquieting. We want architecture that has more to offer. Architecture that
bleeds, exhausts, that turns and even breaks, as far as I am concerned. Architecture that lights up, stings,
rips, and tears under stress. Architecture has to be cavernous, fiery, smooth, hard, angular, brutal, round,
delicate, colorful, obscene, lustful, dreamy, attracting, repelling, wet, dry, and throbbing. Alive or dead. If
cold, then cold as a block of ice. If hot, then hot as a blazing wing. Architecture must blaze.” (Coop
Himmelb(l)au, 1980)
This is an idea of architecture in the opposite of eclectic postmodern approach. Complexity and
contradiction have different definitions than from Venturi’s. The forms, like the meanings and activities,
can be consumed simultaneously. In other words, the meanings are not only shifting but superimposed.

2.2 Semiotics in deconstructionist and contemporary architecture

The shift from being a Poststructualist to a Deconstructionist is slightly distinctive. Most of the mentioned
architects find it unnecessary to be categorized with these terms in the first place. However,
deconstructivist theory criticizes poststructualism, too. It accepts that all interpretations must be
excluded, and the only essence is relativity.
It is understood from Coop Himmelb(l)au’s statements that the theory flows into the practice as not a
style, but as an idea; a desire for communicating through affect. Colebrook (2005), examines Deleuze and
Guattari’s A Thousand Plateaus-Capitalism and Schizophrenia, throughout asking the questions: How is
any field, differences system or plane of knowable terms generated, and how does one term explain and
close out the genesis of any structure? For Deleuze and Guattari, a structure is a set of external relations;
a way regarding how life is viewed or generated from some point. One side of a stratification is the
structure; the other side is that which is structured (Deleuze and Guattari, 1987: 242). Colebrook adds
from Deleuze’s subsequent work Difference and Repetition (1994) that this means “considering the
process of differentiation –the dynamic unfolding of difference” (Deleuze, 1994: 206-7).
The pioneer of deconstructionist philosophy Jacques Derrida has entitled to the structure and structured
similarly as the signifier and the signified. According to Caputo (1984), he aims to end fiction, to destroy
the illusion chain that we are woven around; not that he thinks that there is anything other than fictions,
possibilities, changeable organizations of codes. Derrida suggest that we have to face up to the threats of
living in a sham. According to him, the fake comfort of the illusion, what seems to be established and
unchangeable, should give its place to honesty. So, he thinks that we need to be liberated, and calls his
freeing technique deconstruction (Mugerauer, 1988). Our relationship with the physical and social
environment -that is basically nature, buildings and culture, should be deconstructed, in order to go deep
into our historical beings and relationships. Mugerauer (1988) explains that for Derrida, nothing exists
freely, and the whole world is a text. He quotes;
“…the world is a texture of traces which exist autonomously as ‘things’ only as they refer to or relate to
each other. They are therefore ‘signs’ in that, like signs, their ‘being’ always lies elsewhere (because a sign
is always the sign of something else; it cannot refer to something other…No entity…has a unique being…
apart from the web of relations and forces in which it is situated. The thing itself always escapes.”
(Derrida, 1973: 104)
It means that difference and delay never stop. Difference, as Derrida uses it, has two senses. It means
differ and defer. To differ means to be spatially separate (nothing, not even the present or consciousness,
is self-present or identical; there is no original identity). To defer means to temporally separate (nothing
ever is wholly present; even the present is always delayed). In short, the signifiers go in an endless chain.
To sum up according to this approach, it can be claimed that the -architectural- text originates from many
sub-references. This reference system includes many meanings, which are variable and ambiguous,
according to their places in this differences system. The signifier is a diverse form of the signified.
The adaptation of Derrida’s semiology philosophy to architectural theory has been formalized through the
exhibition Deconstructivist Architecture of New York MOMA (Museum of Modern Art) in 1988. This
foundation and a group of critics engaged Coop Himmelb(l)au, Peter Eisenman, Frank Gehry, Zaha Hadid,
Rem Koolhaas, Daniel Libeskind and Bernard Tschumi to each other. Unlike the early postmodern style,
which began as an American movement then later some years was engaged to the developments in
Europe; deconstructionist style became rapidly international owing to Architectural Association in London
and former Institute for Architecture and Urban Studies in New York. These designers don’t have a
common cultural heritage or a common architectural background. But the style is considered as a
common movement from different geographies –a common language with different idioms.
Under these circumstances, this limited classification may constitute some problems. McLeod (1989)
claims that it is misleading to connect the formal source of deconstructivism only to early Russian
Constructivism. For example Coop Himmelb(l)au’s works back then were futuristic, but inspired by
German Expressionism. Furthermore, studying the relations of deconstructivism with former 20 th century
movements, Mcleod adds that it shares particular visions with modernism. Preferring abstract forms,
refusing continuity and tradition, be charmed by technological imageries, taking orthodox academism
lightly, apocalyptical and controversial statements -all these remind of the early modernism era.
Nevertheless deconstructivism shares postmodernism’s many motive forces at its emergence. Both refuse
modernism’s essential ideologies, which are functionalism and structural rationalism, and lay emphasize
on architecture’s formal qualifications.
Towards a semiology-morphology analysis via case studies, in other words, in order to examine the
signifier’s meaning-form concept, it is necessary to explain the relationships between the designer
(image), the spectator/ user (perception), the signifier (form) and the signified (meaning).
The first part of this chapter showed that semiotics is the essential component for all postmodern
approaches. In early postmodernism, being a tool for symbolic messages, and in latter being a metaphor
for non-architectural concepts. Van der Voort and Van der Wegen (2005) think that the reason for
deconstructionist forms to be seen only as artistic forms or misunderstood by the users is that the
underlying philosophical and scientific ideas in most examples of these designs are not comprehended
right.
In this case, it is necessary to handle the genesis of final form in the projects of the above mentioned
MOMA-deconstructionists. Why it is not arbitrary and how it is related to the external and internal forces.
Eisenman’s statements have been that Deconstructivism should be judged by ideological aspects, not by
stylish ones. Tschumi always emphasizes that the events occurring in a space are as important as the
space itself. As for Coop Himmelb(l)au, form doesn’t follow function and function doesn’t follow form,
they interact.
So, it will be useful here to put on a debate of two inspirational architects, Koolhaas and Tschumi.
Architectural design as a communicative tool is to be criticized related to the notion of context. Koolhaas
(1995) raised “Fuck context” in his sensational book S,M,L,XL. Underneath that slogan, instead of being
completely disconnected from context, he means to look at all the layers of the content. The context had
not a physical dimension in his designs after that time, the texts and sub-texts disappeared. There are only
knowledge, culture, economy, etc. dimensions for the emergence of the design. For his De Rotterdam,
Rotterdam’s biggest building, he says "As you move to different parts of the city, the building suggests a
new identity or different identities. (...) We consider that not so much an innovation but a new ambition in
architecture.” (Url-2) The explanation is, because skyscrapers always seem to be the same from every
angle. From S,M,L,XL on, he is prone to create “Bigness” in possible ways. In CCTV Headquarters, the “new
identity of skyscrapers” began. (Images 8, 9) On De Rotterdam he adds “Now Rotterdam is a city where
that kind of experimentation is very legitimate because it was entirely destroyed, so the whole idea of
context is very relative here.” He explains; Rotterdam was a prospective example city when he was a child,
but in 70’s the scales shrinked with humanist approaches, and after 80’s the deindustrialization leaded to
neglection in every part of the city, especially the harbor area. So he aims to project the new future of
Rotterdam in this ghost area, creating a vital vertical city (Url-2). We get from this narration that the
structure is fundamentally loaded with meanings for the designer. But on the spectators’ side, there is
maybe only the effect of power because of the perception of bigness.
Tschumi’s approach to context is self-criticizing; he thinks that architects do not know to use the term
properly. If the context of a project is full of topological, budgetary and political constraints, is it possible
to conceptualize context, he asks (Url-3). In his third book of Event-cities (2004) series he emphasizes that
concept, context and content are all interrelated. In Tschumi’s new architecture nothing is a stable reality,
including concept. In fact, context is always ideological because of its state of being an issue of
interpretation. Accordingly, it can be said that the expressionist narrative of any other architect is another
way of interpreting semiotics in design.
Expression of the differences in the signifier’s structure and the structures occupation with difference and
complexity, i.e. the deconstructionist form finding process can be extended with Deleuze and Guattari’s
(1987) hylomorphic schema suggestion as a paradigm of the genesis of form. To clarify, hylomorphism
consists of two principles; material that is only the potential, and form that makes the object a reality.
According to Deleuze (1994), homogeneous materials cannot see the whole repertory of the self-
organizing capabilities of matter and energy. But if the material is far from equilibrium, heterogeneous
and complex (that is to say, the differences in its intensity are not allowed to be cancelled or the
differences among its components are not cancelled through homogenization), the full set of singularities
and affects will be revealed. With this explanation he tries to emphasize not the emergence of form but
the potential in it. The potential is best expressed when materials behave complex and variable (Delanda,
2004).
“We may now be in a position to think about the origin of form and structure, not as something imposed
from the outside on an inert matter, not as a hierarchical command from above as in an assembly line, but
as something that may come from within the materials, a form that we tease out of those materials as we
allow them to have their say in the structures we create.” (Delanda, 2004)
At this point, we take a look again on the notion of allegory in semiology. Almost every spectator is able to
perceive the formal reference to sailing boats in Sydney Opera House. (Image 10) This kind of an
illustration is not only a sculptural morphogenesis but the designer’s expression of the city’s natural
environment and ethos.
Steven Holl’s Stretto House is an interpretation of Bartok’s music; as he puts it “The house projects the
character of the site through a series of concrete spatial dams with metal framed aqueous space flowing
through them. Pouring over the dams, like the overlapping stretto in music, water reflects the landscape
outside and the spaces overlapping inside.” (Url-4) Or, the structure of Knut Hamsun Center comes up
from Norway’s most creative thinker and writer Hamsun’s experiments on human mind’s complexity. In
the works of the architect, a meticulous hylomorphic shema is to observe. (Images 11,12)
Another designer group who like to apply their theories in practice, UN Studio, uses complexity in their
project Mercedes Benz Museum as a form of dynamism. The building is for exhibiting cars, but it is an
exhibition, experience itself. The space organization refers to the car-oriented city life. In the section,
there are three nodal points which are wrapped around in the plan. The plainness and symmetry of the
floors are destroyed; there are some ways and shortcuts, like in moving any city. In addition to these, the
materiality support the effect of the semiotic theory of the design also. (Image 13)
Coop Himmelblau’s Busan Cinema Center is a good case of contextualization of conceptualization –in
Tschumi’s (2004) terms. Here, the hylomorphic shema sustances the experience of a unique language of
juxtaposing forms with extreme materiality. The spatial organization questions its own structural
elements’ relations. The architects design walls, roofs and all other surfaces, extracting their relationships
with ground, sky and gravity from the traditional one; with their words, from the safe and sound one.
(Image 14) Blending the tensions of our day’s cities and lives in design process, the architects aim to
create exciting moments for the spectators and users through allowing them to see the life in and around
the building from different perspectives. The structures are realized with cutting-edge technologies, even
can be called futuristic. Thus, they are innovative and symbolic, and absolutely shocking slices in the urban
pattern either if the unusual forms are pleasant or not for the spectator. The semiotics the designers
follow lies underneath the interaction of form and functions, the metaphysical codes are there to unfold
in time, through experiencing the physical structure. However, there is an explicit physical reference, too.
The form of the roofs as the skyline-mixed-waves point out the topographical features of the cityscape.
In order to the movement notion in deconstructivist theory, which is not necessarily actual bodily
movement but the idea of movement, the architectural stereotypical codes are included in the new ones
in these buildings. According to Tschumi (1996: 148), layerings, juxtaposition and superposition of images
purposefully blurred the conventional relationship between graphic conventions and their meaning in the
built realm. Busan Cinema Center and similar urban projects of Coop Himmelb(l)au are signifiers of, as put
in Tschumi’s words, “a complex architectural reality and drawings (art works) in their own right, with their
own frame of reference, deliberately set apart from the conventions of architectural plans and sections” in
such a manner.
According to this contemporary approach, differing time-place and spectator-place relations will differ
through experience. Genius loci will occur through time. Connecting the cases to Deleuze (1994) again, it
can be said design’s multi-layered and rhizomatic structure -which is territorialization by
deterritorialization- will constantly change with its signified and signifiers being in the world. Deleuze
coined the term superfold -there is as much space and folding as the forms of perception- after which we
understand heterogeneity, complexity and variability in architectural design.

3. Epilogue
Design, with its process and product, signifies not just an object or a title but a whole idea. This signifier
should be a representation of the designer’s foresights on contemplations and necessities about the life
programmed for the emergent space. This approach internalizes that form as signifier, which is the final
ground of architectural process, references the signified, the whole scope of tangible and intangible
components. The spectator or user, who perceives these meanings of the signifier, will be the one to
sustain the place in a constant movement. Wittgenstein raises a question on the content of our
experience of forms as an interpretation.
“Do I really see something different each time or do I only interpret what I see in a different way? I am
inclined to say the former. But why? To interpret is to think, to do something; seeing is a state.” (in
Winters, 2007:91)
In this context, an explanation for spatial design as communication according to Deleuze’s superfold
definition is legitimate.
“Each located observer is the opening of a fold, a world folded around its contemplations and rhythms.
There are as many spaces as there are styles of perception. If a fold is the way perceptions curve around or
are oriented according to an acting body, then the thought of these curves produces a life that can think
not just its own human world – the space of man- but the sense of space as such.” (Deleuze, 1988: 131)
A designer is able to pre-design the possibilities the product may allow, that means predicting the future
situations and activities according to the developments through successful interaction between the
spectator and the signifier.
Semiology in poststructualist architectural discourse argues concepts like; the linguistic structure of
architecture can be independent from time or simultaneous, the relations can be causeless but
contextual, the sign system can be unstable, polysemic and simultaneously existing. In deconstructionist
architecture, semiology is more embedded in theory. In the context of deconstructionist philosophy, the
architects question the former design systems according to Derrida’s idea of the requirement for
movement of differences. They aim to split a text and superpose another text into. The patterns this
second text has, will differ from the origin; and then the other superposed ones will the former. The way
opened up to diverse new texts will lengthen. The signified concentrated in this texts lead the designers
to create the system for figure patterns. The signifiers go in an endless chain.
Avant-garde contains notions like innovation, symbol, montage, contradiction, shock, autonomy,
reconstruction, timelessness and disharmony (Papadakis, 1990). This content is legible in the cases
discussed in the former chapter, the architecture of poststructualism, deconstructivism and contemporary
no-titled approaches. They question the context of the form with the environment, with city life and
public realm. In addition to this, concerned with morphogenesis, the emergence of potentials in forms is
the essential notion for designing.
The concordance between anthropology and cybernetics, groundbreaking developments in technology,
with respect to rational mind and soul, opens up ways of more creative and vital design theories and
practices. It is generally accepted in contemporary design world that using semiotics in an eclectic
postmodern way is insignificant. The meanings, i.e. natural and artificial texts and sub-texts generate
spatial forms for social and physical well-being of humans and cities. At the end, all the environment is
created to search for the best concord for the structure of human activity patterns.

References
Caputo, J.D. (1984) ‘From the Deconstruction of Hermeneutics to the Hermeneutics of Deconstruction’,
Proceedings, 18th Heidegger Conference, University of Wisconsin, Stevens Point.
Colebrook, C. (2005) ‘The Space of Man: On the Specificity of Affect in Deleuze and Guattari’, in Buchanan,
I. and Lambert, G. (ed.) Deleuze and Space, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Coop Himmelb(l)au (1980) Architectur Muss Brennen, Institut für Gebäudelehre und Entwerfen, Vienna:
TU Wien. Available at http://www.coop-himmelblau.at/architecture/philosophy/architecture-must-blaze
Coop Himmelb(l)au (1995) The Architecture of Clouds. Available at http://www.coop-
himmelblau.at/architecture/philosophy/architecture-of-clouds/
Coop Himmelblau (1997) ‘The Future of Splendid Desolation’, in Jencks, C. and Kropf, K. (ed.) Theories and
Manifestoes of Contemporary Architecture, Chicester: Academy Editions.
Decq, O. (2004) ‘Architecture and Pleasure’, in Tschumi, B. and Cheng, I. (ed.) The State of Architecture at
the Beginning of the 21st Century, New York: The Monacelli Press, pp.54-55.
Delanda, M. (2004) ‘Material Complexity’, in Leach, N., Turnbull, D. and Williams, C. (ed.) Digital Tectonics,
Chicester: John Wiley and Sons.
Deleuze, G. and Guattari, F. (1987) A Thousand Plateaus-Capitalism and Schizophrenia, Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press.
Deleuze, G. (1988) Foucault, London: Athlone.
Deleuze, G. (1994) Difference and Repetition, New York: Columbia University Press.
Derrida, J. (1973) Speech and Phenomena, Evanston: Northwestern University Press.
Koolhaas, R., Mau, B. (1995) S,M,L,XL, New York: The Monacelli Press
McLeod, M. (1989) ‘Architecture and Politics in the Reagan Era: From Postmodernism to
Deconstructivism’, in Hays, M. (ed.) Architecture Theory Since 1968, Cambridge: MIT Press.
Minai, A.T. (1989) Design as Aesthetic Communication, New York: Peter Lang.
Mugerauer, R. (1988) ‘Derrida and Beyond’, Center, vol.4, pp.66-75.
Papadakis, A. (ed.) (1990) The New Modern Aesthetic, London: Academy.
Prix, W. (2003) ‘b5 2 c6: Public Space’, in Tschumi, B. and Cheng, I. (ed.) The State of Architecture at the
Beginning of the 21st Century, New York: The Monacelli Press.
Tschumi, B. (1996) Architecture and Disjunction, Cambridge: MIT Press.
Tschumi, B. (2004) Event-Cities 3- Concept vs. Context vs. Content, Londra: MIT Press.
Van der Voordt T. and T. Van Wegen, H. (2005) Architecture in Use, Oxford: Architectural Press.
Winters, E. (2007) Aesthetics and Architecture, London/ New York: Continuum Publishing.
Url-1 <http://www.architecturalreview.com/essays/computers-in-theory-and-practice/8646960.article>
[10.08.2014].
Url-2 <http://www.dezeen.com/2013/11/27/de-rotterdam-rem-koolhaas-transcript/> [01.09.2014].
Url-3 <http://www.aaschool.ac.uk/VIDEO/lecture.php?ID=2561> [02.09.2014].
Url-4 <http://www.stevenholl.com/project-detail.php?id=26&search=stretto%20house> [01.09.2014].
Image references
1 <http://www.charlesjencks.com/#!the-garden-of-cosmic-speculation> [01.10.2014].
2 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Duck> [01.10.2014].
3 <http://www.architecturalreview.com/essays/computers-in-theory-and-practice/8646960.article>
[01.10.2014].
4 <http://www.archdaily.com/62743/ad-classics-vanna-venturi-house-robert-venturi/> [01.10.2014].
5 <http://www.archdaily.com/124725/ad-classics-neue-staatsgalerie-james-stirling/.;
http://www.archdaily.com/498291/happy-birthday-james-stirling/> [01.10.2014].
6 <http://www.archdaily.com/407522/ad-classics-the-portland-building-michael-graves/;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triumphal_arch> [01.10.2014].
7 <http://www.coop-himmelblau.at/architecture/projects/ufa-cinema-center> [01.10.2014].
8 <http://www.archdaily.com/451377/de-rotterdam-oma/> [01.10.2014].
9 <http://www.designboom.com/architecture/oma-cctv-headquarters-now-complete/> [01.10.2014].
10 <http://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidney_Opera_Evi> [01.10.2014].
11 <http://www.stevenholl.com/project-detail.php?id=26&search=stretto%20house> [01.10.2014].
12 < http://www.stevenholl.com/project-detail.php?type=museums&id=39> [01.10.2014].
13 <http://www.unstudio.com/projects/mercedes-benz-museum> [01.10.2014].
14 <http://www.coop-himmelblau.at/architecture/projects/busan-cinema-center> [01.10.2014].