Re: ARCHITECTURE: Decon...

I think that this was addressed to me -

Previous Post
__________________________________________________

> 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!

I'm curious. If they are such clear thinkers, how come so many people seem
to get them wrong? It has always seemed to me that the clear thinkers are
are able to clarify and explain in a manner understandable even to the
simplest among us.
I mean this seriously. Should not it make us nervous when so many people
'mis-interpret' a seer? Any seer? I have no opinion whatever of the people
you mention so this applies to anyone who is purported to have some
special wisdom.

_________________________________________________

I did not say that they were clear! I said that they were not sloppy!
There is quite a bit of differemce.

Their writings are not like reading runes or the bible. or zen poetry.
Instead, they are serious thesis that require substantial analysis and the
reading of the references that are refered to. Most people are simply to
lazy to really read. They would rather be told what things mean. Both
Lyotard and Derrida, as well as almost all philosophy and theoretical
writings suffer from this problem. An understanding and appreciation
of these kinds of works cannot be taken from the treatments that are given
in the NY Times Magazine section. Its just as bad as trying to understand
architecture from photographs.


Ray Lauzzana
Editor-in-Chief, Languages of Design
1167 Pacific
San Francisco
CA 94133, USA
+1 (415) 567 4157
Partial thread listing: