ARCHITECTURE: Decon...

From: IN%"[email protected]" "Art Criticism Discussion Forum" 1-DEC-1993
11:31:20.77
To: IN%"[email protected]" "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
<[email protected]>; Wed, 1 Dec 1993 11:31 EDT
Received: From PSUVM(MAILER) by PSUARCH with Jnet id 2611 for [email protected]; Wed,
1 Dec 1993 11:31 EST
Received: from PSUVM.PSU.EDU (NJE origin [email protected]) 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 <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: public artI
Sender: Art Criticism Discussion Forum <[email protected]>
To: Howard Lawrence <[email protected]>
Reply-to: Art Criticism Discussion Forum <[email protected]>
Message-id: <[email protected]>
X-To: ARTCRIT%[email protected]

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
Partial thread listing: