- - The original note follows - -
From: gsd94hp1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Howard Park)
Subject: Re: DECONSTRUCTIVISM anyone?
Date: 21 Feb 1994 07:08:54 GMT
In a recent critical response, Mr. Michael Cullen attempts to shore up his
original assertion that Deconstructivism is "vague" by 1) pointing out that
it ". . . has been de[sc]ribed since it[s] founding as abstract, technical,
representational and symbolic" and that ". . . it was not always a well
defined methodology . . . ." and 2) reiterating that Deconstructivism is
an aesthetic category that ". . . goes far deeper than Eisenman."
The name of this newsgroup is alt.architecture. Although we must all
acknowledge that Deconstructivism has its roots in narrative criticism,
it is reasonable to construe remarks posted to alt.architecture as being
confined to architecture. Moreover, Deconstructivism as it is understood
in architecture is notably distinct from its namesakes in other fields.
I am therefore left guessing as to what importance Mr. Cullen attaches to
his statement that ". . . Deconstructivism has been applied to all
artist[ic] fields [including] painting, sculpture, furniture design,
interior design, graphic design . . . and literature." In other fields,
Deconstructivism may well be nothing more than an aesthetic category, but
in architecture it is a methodology. As a result, the language of
"qualities" and "aesthetics" is unsuitable and wholly inadequate for any
rigorous discourse on Deconstructivism.
In architecture, Deconstructivism owes an insurmountable debt to Peter
Eisenman. No other architect even comes close to being a central figure--
certainly not Frank Gehry. Many (including Gehry himself) no longer
consider him even peripherally important. As far as architecture is
concerned, Deconstructivism does not go much deeper than Eisenman, and no
amount of complaining about "'experts'" can elevate Mr. Cullen's opinion
to the contrary above the opinions of those who are actually engaged in
achieving an expert understanding. Evidently, Mr. Cullen imagines that he
has already surpassed this level of expertise, claiming that he ". . .
realize[s] the full intent of the architects . . . ."--a claim that few
professional architects or theoreticians would care to match.
I want to conclude by pointing out that Mr. Cullen's statements about
Deconstructivism fail to contribute in any way to his larger argument that
Deconstructivism is "vague." Whether it is ". . . abstract, technical,
representational and symbolic" or not, whether ". . . it was not always
. . . well defined . . . ." or not, it is now a rigid, highly
overdetermined methodology for architecture.
From: gsd94hp1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Howard Park)
Subject: Re: DECONSTRUCTIVISM anyone?
Date: 21 Feb 1994 07:08:54 GMT
In a recent critical response, Mr. Michael Cullen attempts to shore up his
original assertion that Deconstructivism is "vague" by 1) pointing out that
it ". . . has been de[sc]ribed since it[s] founding as abstract, technical,
representational and symbolic" and that ". . . it was not always a well
defined methodology . . . ." and 2) reiterating that Deconstructivism is
an aesthetic category that ". . . goes far deeper than Eisenman."
The name of this newsgroup is alt.architecture. Although we must all
acknowledge that Deconstructivism has its roots in narrative criticism,
it is reasonable to construe remarks posted to alt.architecture as being
confined to architecture. Moreover, Deconstructivism as it is understood
in architecture is notably distinct from its namesakes in other fields.
I am therefore left guessing as to what importance Mr. Cullen attaches to
his statement that ". . . Deconstructivism has been applied to all
artist[ic] fields [including] painting, sculpture, furniture design,
interior design, graphic design . . . and literature." In other fields,
Deconstructivism may well be nothing more than an aesthetic category, but
in architecture it is a methodology. As a result, the language of
"qualities" and "aesthetics" is unsuitable and wholly inadequate for any
rigorous discourse on Deconstructivism.
In architecture, Deconstructivism owes an insurmountable debt to Peter
Eisenman. No other architect even comes close to being a central figure--
certainly not Frank Gehry. Many (including Gehry himself) no longer
consider him even peripherally important. As far as architecture is
concerned, Deconstructivism does not go much deeper than Eisenman, and no
amount of complaining about "'experts'" can elevate Mr. Cullen's opinion
to the contrary above the opinions of those who are actually engaged in
achieving an expert understanding. Evidently, Mr. Cullen imagines that he
has already surpassed this level of expertise, claiming that he ". . .
realize[s] the full intent of the architects . . . ."--a claim that few
professional architects or theoreticians would care to match.
I want to conclude by pointing out that Mr. Cullen's statements about
Deconstructivism fail to contribute in any way to his larger argument that
Deconstructivism is "vague." Whether it is ". . . abstract, technical,
representational and symbolic" or not, whether ". . . it was not always
. . . well defined . . . ." or not, it is now a rigid, highly
overdetermined methodology for architecture.