Хаосмотична природа архітектури деконструктивізму

Abstract

У статті розкрито проблему розвитку некласичних підходів у різноманітних дисциплі-нах, зокрема в архітектурі, що призвели до формування нової, синергетичної парадигми про хаос як про стан динамічної невпорядкованості, що містить у собі потенціал для виникнення нової гармонії. Стильове поле та естетосфера деконструктивізму формувалась водночас з авангардними настроями та пошуками нової виразності мистецтва задовго до декларативного затвердження й офіційного неймінгу стилю. Естетична сфера цього стильового потоку належить певним чином до хаосмосу як понятійної одиниці. The article reveals the problem of the development of non-classical approaches in various disciplines, which led to the formation of a new, synergistic paradigm about Chaos, as a state of dynamic disorder, which contains the potential for the emergence of a new harmony. The stylistic field and aesthetosphere of deconstructivism was formed together with avant-garde attitudes and the search for a new expression of art long before the declarative approval and official naming of the style. The aesthetic sphere of this stylistic flow belongs in a certain way to Chaosmos, as a conceptual unit. Postmodern philosophy formulated a number of fundamental attitudes: the philosophy of the “other” (dialogue), speech games, the gap between content and form, function and form, postmodern sensuality, the general understanding of the world as chaos. All these installations influenced the theory and practice of architecture. The task of architectural non-linearity is to express and organize complexity while preserving aesthetics. Deconstructivism, as a new architectural language, is gaining popularity with the advent of the era of digital modeling tools. This brought into the complex design process the possibility of translating the variability of forms into the engineering language of drawings. Its main principle was a formative approach to natural systems. The aesthetic categories of beauty and ugliness are based on the opposition of Cosmos and Chaos. The assessment of what belongs to the category of Chaos depends on two main traditions of understanding Chaos – negative (ultimate, entropic, destructive) or positive (primary, constructive). The connotations (co-meanings) of the mythologeme of Chaos are close to the connotations of the symbolic hypostasis of the Stranger and the Third in communicative philosophy. Mythological Chaos is almost completely identical to the image of the Stranger (enemy) and is included in cosmic dualism (opposition “one’s own – another’s”). Non-classical-synergistic Chaos approaches the image of the Third or Arbiter as a mediator. The classical cultural paradigm gravitates towards the first option, the non-classical one towards the second. In the “optimistic” version, Chaos appears as a sphere of freedom that provides human culture with a potential opportunity to reach a higher level of organization. Alternations of Chaos – Cosmos – Chaos are subject to cyclical changes. Computer technology allows conducting experiments designed for predictability of the result (so-called “threshold” technologies). Any previously unthinkable form – curvilinear, techno-organic, organic – is relatively easy to read by a computer. The special aesthetics of virtual architecture, freed from architectural regularities, affects real design.