October 2015  Yi SHen Ellen

 

 

 

 

 

ABSTRACT

 

The meaning produced by deconstructivist architecture which is deferred through time has brought about a breakthrough in architecture[1]. It is an important aspect to focus on based on the theory and method of semiology in linguistics. This paper will first examine the definition of deconstruction and explain its characteristics in linguistics by reviewing the theory of semiology and then explores the meanings behind it. They are redefined in deconstructivist architectural system through an adaptive construction method[2]. This paper will also discuss the semiotic approach to the deferring meaning through time of deconstructivist architecture by considering the structural system to make people experience the buildings on their own rather than instantly express its function[3]. Hence, the Royal Ontorio Museum (‘ROM’) has been used as a case study to decode the content by extracting the design concepts and ideas. The paper will investigate the relationship between the building and its site to demonstrate the effectiveness of this approach in its structure, operation and identification of an architectural system. It will go on to discuss the purposes of the shape of the building and consider the circulation experience with humanity perception. This approach can be a basis for deconstructivist architecture. It is believed that the existence of deconstructivist architecture will have far-reaching significance in its future development[4]. The research method of the essay is qualitative based on descriptive analyses.

 

 

 

Deconstructivist architecture always comes in the form of skewed geometry and produces an aesthetic of danger. Deconstructivist or deconstruction challenges the sense of stability, unity and harmony. It conforms with the inner logic of humanism and creates an unconventional way of architecture[5]. However, it still retains its own concealed meanings. Jonathan Culler suggests that the strange institution forms its own literature and values. Semiology is the study of how meaning is created. ‘Semiotic terms’ is defined as ‘signifier’ and ‘signified’. The former is any material thing that signifies a direct expression. The latter is the concept to which a signifier refers[6]. In applying the theory to architectural design, it has a deep meaning behind a new deconstructivist architectural style. The communicative meaning derived from buildings is among the most discussed concept in the architectural industry. This concept appears more in the modern deconstructivist architecture as architects are attempting to define a new impression of it. Moreover, the semiotic perception has been useful in architectural processes and in creating architectural products. This paper discusses the purposes for which the building is created. Therefore, it forms a new language and identity to communicate to humans in the urban context, especially in cities and regions with a historical background. The paper will use Daniel Libeskind’s ROM for analysis. It is a deconstruction-styled building that will be used for discussion of the purpose of deconstructivist architecture based on the semiotic concept. The viability of the semiotic approach in analysing the concept of structure and circulation in architecture will be examined and how the applications and meanings are justified in this building will be expounded.

 

 

Following the discussion on semiology and from a linguistic perspective, e know that it is defined as a newly created language identified as ‘signifier’ and ‘signified’ in a social environment. ‘Signifier’ relies on an agreement. It is a noticeable language and recapitulates itself into architecture with other kinds of discourse. [7]. Umberto Eco states that ‘signifier’ in a building is the actual component, citing the element of a staircase as an example. A staircase leads people up and down, so it is described as ‘signified’. Broadbent states that, in the context of architecture, ‘signifier’ and ‘signified’ appear simultaneously in a building. [8]. Architectural products are created and always accompanied by their own applications and meaning. Semiotic signs can be delivered from architectural urban planning. Architecture is viewed as a social media tool conveying a language and message to communicate with the audience. The semiotic view of deconstructivist architectural design intends for people to discover the mystery of society. In 1989, ROM pre-arranged an exhibition of African collections, showing a transformation from missionary souvenirs to artefact and to the museum specimen. The museum itself was displayed as a history to visitors. Museum is seen as a cultural propagation platform, which is a dead civilisation device represented by their decontextualised objects. Consequently, the museum language should be introduced to the imperialist ideology.[9]

 

Deconstruction is creating a philosophy of meanings.  Mark Wigley argues that the form ends and its imperfection begins[10]. Architecture of deconstruction represents a different sensibility, in which the dream of pure form has been disturbed. It challenges human ability to think on the form. The philosophy of deconstructionism is explained as disorder of dreams of purity of form and disorder of thinking about the form[11]. The ideology is that these buildings have no visual logic and appear in abstract forms. One example is the building of ROM in Toronto by Danniel Libeskind. (Figure1) The whole condition of enclosure of the context breaks down with triangular organically interlocking prismatic form. It manifests the contrasts of innovation and tradition, history and new like two worlds are colliding but still cooperates with the site reasonably, which implies the new genre with bold architectural innovation concepts composite with semiotic perception and high technology[12]. Architects indicate that deconstructivist architecture created buildings can be distinguished from architecture.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 1: The connection of existing building and new construction

 

                The philosophy of meaning of deconstruction also comes from complex human behaviours, desires, emotions and lives[13]. Therefore, architecture should act as a mirror in interpreting those complexities. ROM responded to its meaning by taking into consideration its openness and accessibility. There is no clear dividing line between the building doors and the streets and public places.  This is to act as an open threshold for people to obtain the perception of artefacts and dynamic in the interior space.  The main lobby is a three-storey high atrium. Balconies overlook the lobby, it as an interstitial space formed by the intersection of the east and west crystals. It was constructed in such a way in order for people to experience the space free of emotional and physical diversion. This building connects the inside from the outside. It was not constructed based on the typical, usual experience. Fig 2 shows that this building has an organic connection to the public space. The aspects of emotions, intelligence and sensibility are involved in the experiences of the building. One good example is the large dimensions of angular crystal façade providing shades for edification and enjoyment of the public. It achieves the communicative effects, not only from visual impression, but also from the friendly designs. The language above deconstructivist architecture is attributed to proportion, light and materiality.[14].  In regard to semiotic perception, deconstructivist architecture involves more subjectivity.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 2: The red highlighted part is the angular façade provide shade and interacting to the public area.

 

 

Firstly, architecture enforces human habits. Deconstruction often brings about unexpected outcomes and breaks with habitual architectural design[15]. In other words, deconstructivist architecture should be full of tension and reach the human heart and soul. The ROM is a building without decoration, emphasising the open space experience. It is the largest museum of world culture and natural history in Canada. It has two themes: nature and culture. The presentation of the two themes is through intertwining staircases, which not only lead to the greater exhibition volume but also to interaction with technology and visualisation experience. Therefore, deconstructivist or deconstruction architecture is a singular language to interpret spaces in a humanist and literary way. In general, deconstructivist architecture would reach a new ration with its considerable humanism and technology and lead architecture to innovative future out of the invariable rules[16].

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 3: The yellow highlighted part is the biggest void or atrium in this building.

 

 

            Deconstructivist architecture is not about rehashing traditional buildings but about creating something totally unheard of, even if it has flaws[17]. The ROM extension has provided a superb iconic symbol in the city that has fulfilled clients’ expectations. The facilities provided to the museum serve as a platform for future cultural development and for encouraging forward thinking. It takes museum architecture to a whole new level in Canada in that people no longer perceive a museum as a mundane, traditional building, but it has become a new form of communication between humans and museum.There has been some contemporary movement that breaks with classical tradition, such as ornaments, by revealing the pure form of the structure. The purity of form is established on functional efficiency. However, the contemporary movement is associated with an aesthetic of functionalism, not by complicating the functions to create the building shape[18]. There has been some contemporary movement that breaks with classical tradition, such as ornaments, by revealing the pure form of the structure. The purity of form is established on functional efficiency. However, the contemporary movement is associated with an aesthetic of functionalism, not by complicating the functions to create the building shape. This means that all details of deconstructivist architecture have its purposes. Contemporary architects have expressed their faith in the aesthetics of deconstructivist architecture. ROM serves the dynamics of the functions, meaning people’s experience moves through the facilities of the building. The responsibility of architects is to provide solutions for the client. The functions of the building are the most important factor in determining its shape, and space decides how an architectural shape will be[19].

 

By evaluating the theory of functionalism that applies to contemporary architecture, almost all spaces are designed for abstraction and represent human function. [20]. Architecture design follows human programming, which means that human activity and body performance affect the architectural functional movement by identifying the forms to envelope the spaces. In fact, the rectangular form corresponds more in actual human factor based on historical research. [21]. Thus, another question as to the responsibility of architects by this displacement arises. The instinct of architects is to challenge the mode and shapes of the building influencing the way in which people use it, [22]. Which is reflected in deconstructivist architecture. In addition, technology is rapidly changing – in order to adapt to the consumers’ requirements, architectural transformation is still occurring.

 

                Libeskind wants his work to achieve desires that are not yet explicit by creating spaces that are vibrant and pluralistic[23]. The figure shows the The old building is unsuitable for use for the museum, and the enclosed façades of the existing buildings are not exposed for public viewing. For this reason, architects have come up with a new form of architectural style in order for people to comprehend the concept of and meaning behind the facilities[24]. Thus, the reinforced concrete acts as the base construction and a triangular form is added as an extension, conforming to the traditional design method. The new structure has to avoid the foundations of the original buildings and their footings should be underpinned. The new structure is designed with air intake and extract trenches to suit the location of the existing building services of plant rooms. The basement space is for guest exhibitions. There is also an additional entrance which determines whether people should enter through the national or international cultural museum. The structure is likely to minimise the interior columns. In order to overcome this issue, the structural support for the superstructure has to pass through it, aligned and angled with the walls of the glazing. The construction method is innovative and is always finding ways to solve the technological problems rather than repeat the similar building category. It accelerates the vibrant, pluralistic, urban culture[25].

 

            Secondly, architecture does not rely on decoration to directly express what it is. It leaves room for imagination and for people to breathe and dream. It is also a new style for architecture that cannot be repeated or simulated. Each deconstruction building has its own meanings and metaphors[26]. For instance, the ROM extension enabled the museum to implement an expansion for future need in 2002. With Michael Lee-Chin as the major investor, Daniel Libeskind was appointed for the new Renaissance ROM project and established the crystal form of the building[27]. The crystal form of the building was challenging. Libeskind’s architectural vision developed into a set of six colliding prisms clad in brushed aluminium. Daniel Libeskind's design always starts with the social and historical contexts of the building. He utilises deconstructivist aspects as his design language to represent the explicit metaphors. For example, he used staircases in ROM to illustrate the metaphors of spaces of nature and culture. The metaphors are usually explained by creating the literal and explicit name of the space, such as “crystal building ” in ROM[28].

 

Additionally, architecture is about prompting critique with creations which go beyond expectations. For instance, ROM demonstrates that the facilities of this building are for exhibition, education and the community in Toronto. Also, the restaurant located on crystal zone 5 (figure 4) is a great venue with superb views of the city centre. It has the potential for future architectural development of the functions of the building to provide more flexibility.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 4: The purple part is crystal zone 5

 

            Many ideas have been considered in this project, which will continue to drive deconstructvist architecture forwards to future creations with unique icon.  More specifically, natural lighting effects change throughout the day. Cooler and brighter lighting is used at midday. The space will be lit in warm colours in the evening. Moreover, lighting effects are integral to the bar and restaurant furniture and similar lighting effects are used for the rest of the public circulation space. Lighting at the façade of the building will change with time. However, some halogen parabolic aluminised reflector lamp sources have the dimming effect which will help people in differentiating between the interior and exterior functions. Generally, the lighting design language is adopted as part of this building as well.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 5: The vivid façade during night

 

 

Early contemporary architecture challenged the values of bourgeois society. Nevertheless it was intended to symbolise a new form of order[29].  Late deconstructivist architect, such as Daniel Libeskind, regards society as inherently chaotic, leading to them developing a design language featuring metaphor and voids, to name a few, to reflect their perception of society[30]. Deconstructivism is seen as detachment from the rules of modernism. Deconstructivist architects think that these rules are constraining. Therefore, they decided to play flexibly against the rules, such as by developing controlled chaos. Daniel Libeskind’s free sketches are composed of fragments, collisions and shards and these inspirations form the basis of his ultimate designs.

 

Lastly, the philosophy of Jacques Derrida, together with Peter Eisenman and Daniel Libeskind, has influenced the philosophical theories of deconstructivist architecture.[31]. They state that deconstruction is based on philosophy literature. Daniel Libeskind’s work considers the ‘metaphysics of presence’ as the main topic of deconstructivist architecture philosophical theory. Furthermore, architecture is associated with semiology as it is a language capable of getting its meaning across through linguistic philosophy. The discussion of presence and absence also arises in deconstructivist architecture: it is either solid or void in design. From the analysis of ROM, the void is located in the middle of the building for vertical circulation, allowing people to experience the building. Libeskind applied the concept of local traditions and environment to ROM in response to the surprising range of transformations in materiality, colouration, light design, atmospheric effects, temperature and by considering the extreme weather conditionsin Toronto. This building has a number of elements combined together, such as functionalism and physical construction, and culture and environment, in order to enhance people’s understanding of it.[32]

 

                Deconstructivist architects have provided insights into the meaning of it. In fact, contemporary architects pay scant attention to decorative elements in architecture while deconstructivist architects deal with the missing elements in architecture. Contemporary architects accept that their purpose is to find a utilisable product to replace classic ornaments. Therefore, the deconstructivist route is based on displacement architectural products, which means deconstructivist architecture has additional values. It is always considered as a whole architectural structure system – it cannot be mistaken for destructive intentions.[33]

 

                In conclusion, this paper is aimed at exploring the meanings produced through the semiotic perception of Daniel Libeskind’s ROM extension. The theory of semiology is a new language to communicate to people. The paper has evaluated above the meanings behind the deconstructivist architectural concepts and ideas with regard to ROM. Based on the theory of semiology, an architectural design is identified as either ‘signifier’ or ‘signified’. It provides the audience with the opportunity to experience the philosophical meanings behind the building. It also intends for people to discover the humanity of society through architecture. Therefore, the audience will comprehend deconstructivist architecture through several points. In general, deconstruction connotes the manifesto of semiotic perception. It incarnates a building in such a way as to lead people to experience the architectural functions and encourage people to discover its hidden façade. Deconstructivist architecture and urban design interact to cater for human needs. As a result, it has the ability to defer meaning to human perception, which makes it possible for people to terminologically decipher the architectural meanings established through culture, facilities and society. For further development, architecture should exist with the background of its civilisation and an understanding of its own semiology. Deconstructivist architecture defers its meaning through time in order to achieve a breakthrough.

 

 

 

 

 

1 Hann, Rachel. “Blurred Architecture: duration and performance in the work of Diller Scofidio + Renfro” Performance Research: A Jorunal of the Performing

2 Philip Johnson and Mark Wigley, Deconstructivist Architecture: The Museum of Modern Art, New York(Boston: Little, Brown, 1988), p109-130

3 Umberto Eco, A Theory of Semiotics (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1979), p87-113

4 S. Giedion, Space, Time and Architecture; The Growth of a New Tradition (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1967),p 89-141[1] S. Giedion, Space, Time and Architecture; The Growth of a New Tradition (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1967), p112-143

5 Charles Jencks and Karl Kropf, Theories and Manifestoes of Contemporary Architecture (Chichester, West Sussex: Academy Editions, 1997), p291

6 onathan D Culler, On Deconstruction: Theory and Criticism After Structuralism (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1982),p134-156

7 John Shannon Hendrix, The Contradiction Between Form and Function in Architecture (Hoboken: Taylor and Francis, 2013), p160-175

8 Umberto Eco, A Theory of Semiotics (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1979), p 123-146

9 Marguerite Van Die, Religion and Public Life in Canada Historical and Comparative Perspectives (Toronto, Ont: University of Toronto Press, 2001), p131-145

10 Philip Johnson and Mark Wigley, Deconstructivist Architecture: The Museum of Modern Art, New York(Boston: Little, Brown, 1988), p124-152

11 Charles Jencks and Karl Kropf, Theories and Manifestoes of Contemporary Architecture (Chichester, West Sussex: Academy Editions, 1997), p291

12 Neil Leach, Rethinking Architecture: A Reader in Cultural Theory (New York: Routledge, 1997), p110-123

13 Michael H Mitias, Philosophy and Architecture(Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1994),p111-132 

14 Augé Marc, "Non-Places: An Introduction to Supermodernity | Political Media Review," Political Media Review | , last modified August 12, 2009, http://www.politicalmediareview.org/2009/08/non-places-an-introduction-to-supermodernity/.

15 Lionel March and Philip Steadman, The Geometry of Environment: An Introduction to Spatial Organization in Design (Cambridge, Mass: M.I.T. Press, 1974), p67-189

16 Peter Noever and Regina Haslinger, Architecture in Transition: Between Deconstruction and New Modernism (Munich: Prestel, 1991), p156-179

17 Michael Ryan, Marxism and Deconstruction: A Critical Articulation (Baltimore [u.a.]: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 1989), p111-145

18 Gërmizaj Valon, "Reflections on Deconstructive Architecture," Head of Research Institute in Arts & Architecture AAB University Prishtina Republic of Kosova, last modified February 9, 2009, http://file:///Users/Mac/Downloads/URN-NBN-SI-doc-AJKMSV4B%20(2).pdf.

19 Bernard Tschumi, Architecture and Disjunction(Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, 1994), p125-134

20 Philip Johnson and Mark Wigley, Deconstructivist Architecture: The Museum of Modern Art, New York(Boston: Little, Brown, 1988),p210-265

21 Augé Marc, "Non-Places: An Introduction to Supermodernity | Political Media Review," Political Media Review | , last modified August 12, 2009, http://www.politicalmediareview.org/2009/08/non-places-an-introduction-to-supermodernity/.

22 Michael Ryan, Marxism and Deconstruction: A Critical Articulation (Baltimore [u.a.]: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 1989)

23 Gërmizaj Valon, "Reflections on Deconstructive Architecture," Head of Research Institute in Arts & Architecture AAB University Prishtina Republic of Kosova, last modified February 9, 2009, http://file:///Users/Mac/Downloads/URN-NBN-SI-doc-AJKMSV4B%20(2).pdf.

24 Marguerite Van Die, Religion and Public Life in Canada Historical and Comparative Perspectives(Toronto, Ont: University of Toronto Press, 2001) 

25 Nikos Angelos Salingaros and Christopher Alexander, Anti-Architecture and Deconstruction([Solingen, Germany?]: Umbau-Verlag, 2007),p110-149

26 Jerzy Pelc, Semiotics and Logic (Berlin [u.a.]: de Gruyter Mouton, 2012),58-87

27 Augé Marc, "Non-Places: An Introduction to Supermodernity | Political Media Review," Political Media Review | , last modified August 12, 2009, http://www.politicalmediareview.org/2009/08/non-places-an-introduction-to-supermodernity/.

28 S. Giedion, Space, Time and Architecture; The Growth of a New Tradition (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1967)

29 Jonathan D Culler, On Deconstruction: Theory and Criticism After Structuralism (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1982)

30 Michael Ryan, Marxism and Deconstruction: A Critical Articulation (Baltimore [u.a.]: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 1989)

31 Michael H Mitias, Philosophy and Architecture(Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1994)

32 Jacques Derrida and Edmund Husserl, Edmund Husserl's Origin of Geometry, an Introduction (Stony Brook, N.Y.: N. Hays, 1978)

33 Acques Derrida, Of Grammatology (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1976),p113-148

 

 

BIBLIOGRPAHY

 

Hays, K. Michael. Architecture Theory Since 1968. Cambridge, Mass: The MIT Press, 1998. undefined. P175-197

 

Mitias, Michael H. Philosophy and Architecture. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1994. P 194-225

 

Hendrix, John Shannon. The Contradiction Between Form and Function in Architecture. Hoboken: Taylor and Francis, 2013. P162-189

 

Jencks, Charles, and Karl Kropf. Theories and Manifestoes of Contemporary Architecture. Chichester, West Sussex: Academy Editions, 1997. P291

 

Farah, Habib. "Evaluation the Theories of Semiotics Approach in the Reading of Architecture and Urbanism (PDF Download Available)." ResearchGate. Accessed October 22, 2015. http://www.researchgate.net/publication/280566553_Evaluation_the_Theories_of_Semiotics_Approach_in_the_Reading_of_Architecture_and_Urbanism.

 

Soltan, Margaret , “Journal of Architectural Education (1984-),” Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. on behalf of the Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture, Vol. 49, No. 4 ( 1996), pp. 266-268, Inc. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1425301

 

Valon, Gërmizaj. "Reflections on Deconstructive Architecture." Head of Research Institute in Arts & Architecture AAB, University Prishtina Republic of Kosova. Last modified February 9, 2009. http://file:///Users/Mac/Downloads/URN-NBN-SI-doc-AJKMSV4B%20(2).pdf.

 

Marc, Augé. "Non-Places: An Introduction to Supermodernity | Political Media Review." Political Media Review | . Last modified August 12, 2009. http://www.politicalmediareview.org/2009/08/non-places-an-introduction-to-supermodernity/.

 

Certeau, Michel de, and Steven Rendall. The Practice of Everyday Life. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984.

 

Eisenman, p., (1988): “Eisenmanesie”. V: Architecture + Urbanism, Vol. Extra edition, August. p.:70.

 

Jencks, Charles. The Post-Modern Reader. London: Academy Editions, 1992.

 

Johnson, Philip, and Mark Wigley. Deconstructivist Architecture: The Museum of Modern Art, New York. Boston: Little, Brown, 1988.

 

Leach, Neil. Rethinking Architecture: A Reader in Cultural Theory. New York: Routledge, 1997. undefined.

 

Noever, Peter, and Regina Haslinger. Architecture in Transition: Between Deconstruction and New Modernism. Munich: Prestel, 1991.

 

Ryan, Michael. Marxism and Deconstruction: A Critical Articulation. Baltimore [u.a.]: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 1989.

Van Die, Marguerite. Religion and Public Life in Canada Historical and Comparative Perspectives. Toronto, Ont: University of Toronto Press, 2001. P130-145

 

 Tschumi, Bernard. Architecture and Disjunction. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, 1994. P172-245

 

Woods, Lebbeus. Radical Reconstruction. New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1997. undefined.

 

"Deconstructivism." Saylor Academy. Accessed October 22, 2015. http://www.saylor.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Deconstructivism.pdf.

 

Derrida, Jacques. Of Grammatology. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1976.

 

Derrida, Jacques, and Edmund Husserl. Edmund Husserl's Origin of Geometry, an Introduction. Stony Brook, N.Y.: N. Hays, 1978.

 

Frampton, Kenneth. Modern Architecture: A Critical History. London: Thames and Hudson, 1992.

 Johnson, Philip, and Mark Wigley. Deconstructivist Architecture: The Museum of Modern Art, New York. Boston: Little, Brown, 1988.

 

Salingaros, Nikos Angelos, and Christopher Alexander. Anti-Architecture and Deconstruction. [Solingen, Germany]: Umbau-Verlag, 2007.

 

Culler, Jonathan D. Deconstruction: Critical Concepts in Literary and Cultural Studies. London: Routledge, 2003.

 

Altman, Irwin. The Environment and Social Behavior: Privacy, Personal Space, Territory, Crowding. Monterey, Calif: Brooks/Cole Pub. Co, 1975.

 

Bonta, Juan Pablo. Architecture and Its Interpretation: A Study of Expressive Systems in Architecture. New York: Rizzoli, 1979.

 

Broadbent, Geoffrey, Richard Bunt, and Charles Jencks. Signs, Symbols, and Architecture. Chichester [England]: Wiley, 1980.

 

Eco, Umberto. A Theory of Semiotics. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1979.

 

Giedion, S. Space, Time and Architecture; The Growth of a New Tradition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1967.

 

March, Lionel, and Philip Steadman. The Geometry of Environment: An Introduction to Spatial Organization in Design. Cambridge, Mass: M.I.T. Press, 1974.

 

Morris, Charles W. Foundations of the Theory of Signs. Chicago, Ill: University of Chicago Press, 1938.

 

Pelc, Jerzy. Semiotics and Logic. Berlin [u.a.]: de Gruyter Mouton, 2012. undefined.

 

Semiotic Society of America, Michael Herzfeld, and Margot D. Lenhart. Semiotics 1980. New York: Plenum Press, 1982.

 

Venturi, Robert. Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture. New York: Museum of Modern Art, 2011.

 

Culler, Jonathan D. On Deconstruction: Theory and Criticism After Structuralism. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1982.