I've heard from other students ahead of me in my college that decon came
or originated from an english convention. Do you rememeber back in elementary
and high school how we had to break up sentences and diagram them. We did
these exercises of breaking up and reassembling senetences in a diagramatic
way in order to understand the sentence better. By idnetifying certain
aspects or components of a sentence (i.e. subject, verb, direct and indirect obj
ect) we can fully identify exactly what we are saying.
Is the gramatical convention a transcendance into the field of architecture
which is ambiguously coined "deconstruction" Do we start with a more simple
form which we pull apart to analyze, then reassemble in a more personal or
individual understanding.
Some one enlighten me. Is this an understatement or am I way off base.
or originated from an english convention. Do you rememeber back in elementary
and high school how we had to break up sentences and diagram them. We did
these exercises of breaking up and reassembling senetences in a diagramatic
way in order to understand the sentence better. By idnetifying certain
aspects or components of a sentence (i.e. subject, verb, direct and indirect obj
ect) we can fully identify exactly what we are saying.
Is the gramatical convention a transcendance into the field of architecture
which is ambiguously coined "deconstruction" Do we start with a more simple
form which we pull apart to analyze, then reassemble in a more personal or
individual understanding.
Some one enlighten me. Is this an understatement or am I way off base.