On Thu, 2 Dec 1993, Garry Stevens wrote:
>
> 3) As a sociologist with an architecture degree, I think an interesting way
> of looking at Decon in architecture is simply to see it as yet another
> attempt by a group of avant-gardes to establish themselves as the
> consecrated establishment. The actual content of the theory doesn't matter
> that much. The fact that it IS a theory with apparently high standing with
> intellectuals in other circles is sufficient justification in itself to
> adopt it. One of the great things from architecture's point of view is that
> Decon makes the critic almost as important as the architect. A lot of
That's very interesting and inciteful; no question that career
advancement--'making one's bones' in the quaint lexicon of the hardened
career gangster--is at the root. There's a 'conspiracy' between
architects, clients, contractors, materials' suppliers, etc. to do
something outrageous with a building so that it can advance all their
particular own interests in self-promotion; that's quite normal, natural
and human. It often has little to do with improving the urban environment
and all that stuff; but so it goes.
What I want to know--and I'm looking for the 2 penny explanation--is what
is 'deconstruction in architecture?' What is the theory? Does it speak
only to individuals buildings or does it deal with assemblages i.e.
cities? I'm a simple kinda guy and maybe I'd want to hire one of those
deconstructed architects for my next project. So far I've been kinda
stodgy and I've been going for the architects who put the roof on the TOP
of the building and who have got this thing about walls which are plumb; but
maybe that's not right any more.
Cheers,
David Sucher
>
> 3) As a sociologist with an architecture degree, I think an interesting way
> of looking at Decon in architecture is simply to see it as yet another
> attempt by a group of avant-gardes to establish themselves as the
> consecrated establishment. The actual content of the theory doesn't matter
> that much. The fact that it IS a theory with apparently high standing with
> intellectuals in other circles is sufficient justification in itself to
> adopt it. One of the great things from architecture's point of view is that
> Decon makes the critic almost as important as the architect. A lot of
That's very interesting and inciteful; no question that career
advancement--'making one's bones' in the quaint lexicon of the hardened
career gangster--is at the root. There's a 'conspiracy' between
architects, clients, contractors, materials' suppliers, etc. to do
something outrageous with a building so that it can advance all their
particular own interests in self-promotion; that's quite normal, natural
and human. It often has little to do with improving the urban environment
and all that stuff; but so it goes.
What I want to know--and I'm looking for the 2 penny explanation--is what
is 'deconstruction in architecture?' What is the theory? Does it speak
only to individuals buildings or does it deal with assemblages i.e.
cities? I'm a simple kinda guy and maybe I'd want to hire one of those
deconstructed architects for my next project. So far I've been kinda
stodgy and I've been going for the architects who put the roof on the TOP
of the building and who have got this thing about walls which are plumb; but
maybe that's not right any more.
Cheers,
David Sucher