- - The original note follows - -
From: st93ak5s@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Michael Cullen)
Subject: Re: DECONSTRUCTIVISM anyone?
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 1994 01:31:42 GMT
In article <2jq1ci$jk0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, gsd94hp1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
(Howard Park) wrote:
> 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.
You are correct in stating that opinions, when widely held, do take on a
factual quality. Still, just because certain "experts" proclaim something
as true doesn't make it as so. If the citizens of the western world still
held the opinions that they did when Van Gogh was alive, we wouldn't be
able to enjoy his art as we do now. I do characterize Deconstructivism as
vague. Perhaps I should illustrate the reasoning behind my
characterization. I realize the full intent of the architects and
understand the well orchestrated formulations of their theories. I don't
however see how you think my comments are so off base that have to resort
to ad hominem attacks based on my knowledge. Deconstructivism has been
decsribed since it founding as abstract, technical, representational and
symbolic. Certainly, it was not always a well defined methodology as you
claim it is today. Your point about Deconstructivism being treated as an
aesthetic category is true. Whether you would like to believe it or not,
Deconstructivism has been applied to all artististic fields since it's
founding well over 50 years ago. To name a few: painting, sculpture,
furniture design, interior design, graphic design, architecture and
literature. Perhaps you should realize that this movemnt goes far deeper
than Eisenman. Your comments about Frank Gehry are baseless since you were
the one who pointed out he was not the "leader" in the first place. Now it
seems as if you are discrediting Gehry as being associated with this
movement at all.
__________________________________________________________________________
"I think the idea of misogyny is a stimulant to the feminists, and it's
rather like anti-Semites looking for Jewish noses everywhere."
Lucian Freud's response to his supposed misogyny and sexism.
From: st93ak5s@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Michael Cullen)
Subject: Re: DECONSTRUCTIVISM anyone?
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 1994 01:31:42 GMT
In article <2jq1ci$jk0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, gsd94hp1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
(Howard Park) wrote:
> 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.
You are correct in stating that opinions, when widely held, do take on a
factual quality. Still, just because certain "experts" proclaim something
as true doesn't make it as so. If the citizens of the western world still
held the opinions that they did when Van Gogh was alive, we wouldn't be
able to enjoy his art as we do now. I do characterize Deconstructivism as
vague. Perhaps I should illustrate the reasoning behind my
characterization. I realize the full intent of the architects and
understand the well orchestrated formulations of their theories. I don't
however see how you think my comments are so off base that have to resort
to ad hominem attacks based on my knowledge. Deconstructivism has been
decsribed since it founding as abstract, technical, representational and
symbolic. Certainly, it was not always a well defined methodology as you
claim it is today. Your point about Deconstructivism being treated as an
aesthetic category is true. Whether you would like to believe it or not,
Deconstructivism has been applied to all artististic fields since it's
founding well over 50 years ago. To name a few: painting, sculpture,
furniture design, interior design, graphic design, architecture and
literature. Perhaps you should realize that this movemnt goes far deeper
than Eisenman. Your comments about Frank Gehry are baseless since you were
the one who pointed out he was not the "leader" in the first place. Now it
seems as if you are discrediting Gehry as being associated with this
movement at all.
__________________________________________________________________________
"I think the idea of misogyny is a stimulant to the feminists, and it's
rather like anti-Semites looking for Jewish noses everywhere."
Lucian Freud's response to his supposed misogyny and sexism.