- - The original note follows - -
From: gsd94hp1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Howard Park)
Subject: Re: DECONSTRUCTIVISM anyone?
Date: 14 Feb 1994 01:27:32 GMT
Prof. Leavitt's summary of Deconstruction provides a valuable backdrop to this
discussion, but (as he surmised) the term is conceptualized somewhat differently
in architecture. Some would accuse the Deconstructivist architects of having
committed an error of diction, and they wouldn't be far off. Architects like
Peter Eisenman have, in fact, roundly discarded most of the ideological content
of Deconstructionism and retained only one aspect of its methodology: Just as
Jacques Derrida seeks to subvert the literary event by focusing his analysis on
the seemingly random or insignificant, so Peter Eisenman attempts to subvert
architecture. How he proposes to do this is unfortunately still unclear after
almost thirty years. Deconstruction still bears the stamp of its origin in
literary theory, and its application to architecture can legitimately be called
a solecism.
From: gsd94hp1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Howard Park)
Subject: Re: DECONSTRUCTIVISM anyone?
Date: 14 Feb 1994 01:27:32 GMT
Prof. Leavitt's summary of Deconstruction provides a valuable backdrop to this
discussion, but (as he surmised) the term is conceptualized somewhat differently
in architecture. Some would accuse the Deconstructivist architects of having
committed an error of diction, and they wouldn't be far off. Architects like
Peter Eisenman have, in fact, roundly discarded most of the ideological content
of Deconstructionism and retained only one aspect of its methodology: Just as
Jacques Derrida seeks to subvert the literary event by focusing his analysis on
the seemingly random or insignificant, so Peter Eisenman attempts to subvert
architecture. How he proposes to do this is unfortunately still unclear after
almost thirty years. Deconstruction still bears the stamp of its origin in
literary theory, and its application to architecture can legitimately be called
a solecism.