From: IN%"[email protected]" "Art Criticism Discussion Forum" 1-DEC-1993
11:31:20.77
To: IN%"HRL@xxxxxxxxxxxx" "Howard Lawrence"
CC:
Subj: RE: public artI
Return-path: <[email protected]>
Return-path: ARTCRIT <@PSUVM.PSU.EDU:[email protected]>
Received: from Jnet-DAEMON by ARCH.PSU.EDU (PMDF #12866) id
<01H5YPHNJZ7K96VJZ1@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Wed, 1 Dec 1993 11:31 EDT
Received: From PSUVM(MAILER) by PSUARCH with Jnet id 2611 for HRL@PSUARCH; Wed,
1 Dec 1993 11:31 EST
Received: from PSUVM.PSU.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@PSUVM) by PSUVM.PSU.EDU
(LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 8108; Wed, 1 Dec 1993 11:30:56 -0500
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1993 08:28:34 -0800
From: Raymond Lauzzana <lauzzana@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: public artI
Sender: Art Criticism Discussion Forum <[email protected]>
To: Howard Lawrence <HRL@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: Art Criticism Discussion Forum <[email protected]>
Message-id: <01H5YPHNJZ7K96VJZ1@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
X-To: ARTCRIT%YORKVM1.BITNET@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
The Hadid that I spoke of is Zaha Hadid. She recently recieved a commission
in New York for something, but I forget what it is. Most of her work is
drawings and these drawings are what she has built most of her reputation on.
I do not see Johnson as in anyway deconstructive. His work simply does not
possess the structural integrity or awareness that is required for a structural
critique that is essential to a "deconstructive" attitude. His work falls mor
into "pop" pr "post-modern" as movements and ideas. Personally, I don't feel
that his work has been all that strong. He seems to have gone along with
wahtever was popular at the moment with out any ideas of his own.
I don't see the deconstruvists as dismantlers of modernism. I think that it is
a very serious mistake to see them that way. Certainly, that is not what
Derrida is about. All movements - isms - seem to get out of hand. These two
certainly do. Deconstruction is about dismantling institutions. To the
extent that modernism is an institution , it most scertainly needs
deconstructing.
There is another word that floats around - mostly in literature -
poststructural.
This is a difficult words for architects to adopt be cause it gets at one of
the fundamental institutions of architecture. Maybe, what they really need is
post-functionalism for them to get the point.
An important thing to remember - neither Lyotard (Post-Modern) nor Derrida
(deconstuction) are sloppy thinkers. They don't ever propose the loosy-goosy
popular interpretations of these ideas which seem to be floating around. I
suggest that you read the original works!
Ray Lauzzana
Editor-in-Chief, Languages of Design
1167 Pacific
San Francisco
CA 94133, USA
+1 (415) 567 4157
11:31:20.77
To: IN%"HRL@xxxxxxxxxxxx" "Howard Lawrence"
CC:
Subj: RE: public artI
Return-path: <[email protected]>
Return-path: ARTCRIT <@PSUVM.PSU.EDU:[email protected]>
Received: from Jnet-DAEMON by ARCH.PSU.EDU (PMDF #12866) id
<01H5YPHNJZ7K96VJZ1@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Wed, 1 Dec 1993 11:31 EDT
Received: From PSUVM(MAILER) by PSUARCH with Jnet id 2611 for HRL@PSUARCH; Wed,
1 Dec 1993 11:31 EST
Received: from PSUVM.PSU.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@PSUVM) by PSUVM.PSU.EDU
(LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 8108; Wed, 1 Dec 1993 11:30:56 -0500
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1993 08:28:34 -0800
From: Raymond Lauzzana <lauzzana@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: public artI
Sender: Art Criticism Discussion Forum <[email protected]>
To: Howard Lawrence <HRL@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: Art Criticism Discussion Forum <[email protected]>
Message-id: <01H5YPHNJZ7K96VJZ1@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
X-To: ARTCRIT%YORKVM1.BITNET@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
The Hadid that I spoke of is Zaha Hadid. She recently recieved a commission
in New York for something, but I forget what it is. Most of her work is
drawings and these drawings are what she has built most of her reputation on.
I do not see Johnson as in anyway deconstructive. His work simply does not
possess the structural integrity or awareness that is required for a structural
critique that is essential to a "deconstructive" attitude. His work falls mor
into "pop" pr "post-modern" as movements and ideas. Personally, I don't feel
that his work has been all that strong. He seems to have gone along with
wahtever was popular at the moment with out any ideas of his own.
I don't see the deconstruvists as dismantlers of modernism. I think that it is
a very serious mistake to see them that way. Certainly, that is not what
Derrida is about. All movements - isms - seem to get out of hand. These two
certainly do. Deconstruction is about dismantling institutions. To the
extent that modernism is an institution , it most scertainly needs
deconstructing.
There is another word that floats around - mostly in literature -
poststructural.
This is a difficult words for architects to adopt be cause it gets at one of
the fundamental institutions of architecture. Maybe, what they really need is
post-functionalism for them to get the point.
An important thing to remember - neither Lyotard (Post-Modern) nor Derrida
(deconstuction) are sloppy thinkers. They don't ever propose the loosy-goosy
popular interpretations of these ideas which seem to be floating around. I
suggest that you read the original works!
Ray Lauzzana
Editor-in-Chief, Languages of Design
1167 Pacific
San Francisco
CA 94133, USA
+1 (415) 567 4157