On Tue, 15 Feb 1994, Raymond Lauzzana wrote:
> One, only one - provide a place. There are lots of others.
That's too cryptic for me. I assume that you were answering a prior post:
Lauzzana:
> Underneath all of this are much deeper usefually substantially more
> significant prposes to buildings than simply keeping rain out, however.
Sucher:
Ok. I'll bite. Give me ONE reason MORE important than keeping the rain out?
I asked my question seriously; I am extremely skeptical about the
intellectual seriousness of 'deconstructionism,' at least as applied to
buildings and landscape. It (deconstruction) seems to me to be a lot of
puffery, which would be fine, as there is much difference in tastes in the
world and there is room for disagreements about what is worthwhile &
valuable and if a person wishes to ride one particular hobby-horse, well
that's what makes markets.
However, when it comes to deconstruction, my cursory glance (I admit that
at the start) seems to show that there is nothing there: no "place," as it
were. With real and very serious problems of urban settlement, it seems to
me that DECON is an active negative because it diverts attention (as in
'fiddlin g while Rome burns') from real and significant problems. Now I am
may be all wrong on this and I am willing to change my mind; but so far,
DECON seems to be...well...very little at all. Where is the THERE with
DECON?
Cheers,
David Sucher
> One, only one - provide a place. There are lots of others.
That's too cryptic for me. I assume that you were answering a prior post:
Lauzzana:
> Underneath all of this are much deeper usefually substantially more
> significant prposes to buildings than simply keeping rain out, however.
Sucher:
Ok. I'll bite. Give me ONE reason MORE important than keeping the rain out?
I asked my question seriously; I am extremely skeptical about the
intellectual seriousness of 'deconstructionism,' at least as applied to
buildings and landscape. It (deconstruction) seems to me to be a lot of
puffery, which would be fine, as there is much difference in tastes in the
world and there is room for disagreements about what is worthwhile &
valuable and if a person wishes to ride one particular hobby-horse, well
that's what makes markets.
However, when it comes to deconstruction, my cursory glance (I admit that
at the start) seems to show that there is nothing there: no "place," as it
were. With real and very serious problems of urban settlement, it seems to
me that DECON is an active negative because it diverts attention (as in
'fiddlin g while Rome burns') from real and significant problems. Now I am
may be all wrong on this and I am willing to change my mind; but so far,
DECON seems to be...well...very little at all. Where is the THERE with
DECON?
Cheers,
David Sucher