- - The original note follows - -
From: gsd94hp1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Howard Park)
Subject: Re: DECONSTRUCTIVISM anyone?
Date: 15 Feb 1994 08:33:22 GMT
In a recent follow-up, Mr. Cullen points out that the characterization of
Eisenman as the central figure in Deconstructivist architecture is ". . .
only opinion." Readers of this newsgroup should be warned that this
statement is somewhat deceptive. If I assert that Mascagni is the greatest
composer of all time, that is "only opinion." If, on the other hand, I
assert that Mascagni was the founder of Realist Opera, that is not "only
opinion." Opinions widely held by informed practitioners and academicians
begin to take on a factual aspect that makes one wonder why anyone would
call them "only opinion."
In this case, I think we are given a hint in Mr. Cullen's characterization
of Deconstructivism as "vague." The fact is that Deconstructivism is not
vague; it displays a methodological uniformity unseen in any other movement
today. As long as it characterized as vague, however, those with no real
knowledge of the subject can treat it as an aesthetic category that could
just as easily be applied to dog food as to architecture. Only a
misconception of Deconstructivism as such a category could lead Mr. Cullen
to write about the "deconstructivist qualities" of Frank Gehry's work or to
make statements like ". . . there are no real leaders . . . ." Under this
reasoning, we may suppose that there is no real knowledge either.
From: gsd94hp1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Howard Park)
Subject: Re: DECONSTRUCTIVISM anyone?
Date: 15 Feb 1994 08:33:22 GMT
In a recent follow-up, Mr. Cullen points out that the characterization of
Eisenman as the central figure in Deconstructivist architecture is ". . .
only opinion." Readers of this newsgroup should be warned that this
statement is somewhat deceptive. If I assert that Mascagni is the greatest
composer of all time, that is "only opinion." If, on the other hand, I
assert that Mascagni was the founder of Realist Opera, that is not "only
opinion." Opinions widely held by informed practitioners and academicians
begin to take on a factual aspect that makes one wonder why anyone would
call them "only opinion."
In this case, I think we are given a hint in Mr. Cullen's characterization
of Deconstructivism as "vague." The fact is that Deconstructivism is not
vague; it displays a methodological uniformity unseen in any other movement
today. As long as it characterized as vague, however, those with no real
knowledge of the subject can treat it as an aesthetic category that could
just as easily be applied to dog food as to architecture. Only a
misconception of Deconstructivism as such a category could lead Mr. Cullen
to write about the "deconstructivist qualities" of Frank Gehry's work or to
make statements like ". . . there are no real leaders . . . ." Under this
reasoning, we may suppose that there is no real knowledge either.