Responding to msg by jfp7400@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx (John Pohorylo) on
>I think you guys need to understand the differences
>between Deconstruction and Deconstructivist
>architecture. To call Eisenman a Desconstruction
>architect is a sign of your ignorance (PLACING THE
>BEAVIS AND BUTTHEAD COMMENT ASIDE). Last year I
>posted a definition of Deconstructivist architecture
>(fall 1993?) and it should be alive and kicking in the
>archives of this bullitenboard. Please read it and
>then get back to us. (In other words, How can you
>compare apples (Eisenman) to oranges (Ghery)?)
>
>John Pohorylo
>NJIT Arch Grad Student
>Busy apple picking in upstate N.Y.
Mark, John, David, everybody,
Except on this list I had not heard anyone use the term "decon"
in quite a while, so I happily and gullibly, rose to the
occasion to misuse and abuse the term.
Whether "decon" means deconstruction, deconstructivist, de con
(as in the confidence game) or whatever, is just fine by me for
the language mavens advocate these liberating games of creative
misunderstanding and expropriation and exploitation of others'
earnest expolatories (and they disdain alliteration says Bruce
Robbins).
Last I heard from some of the archi-accused -- Zaha, Wolf, Leb,
even Mr. Giovannini -- at a party (!) they are as embarassed by
the "deconstructivists" term Joseph concocted as he is but
complained that their dim-witted competition would not forego
it's use as a pigeonholing putdown.
Even Derrida, excuse me, has written (in the authoritative NYT
Magazine (!)) that "deconstruction" has been absorbed into the
culture hence there is no longer a need to debate it or use a
term which has come to mean a zillion things. He specifically
attacked Joseph's hybrid as meaningless -- Derrida's highest
compliment. But note that the jounalistic sendup has become de
rigeur of the lingua franca of the avant garde.
OTOH, OTOH, does it matter if we have or have not absorbed the
latest and hottest defilements of, or by, Assemblages, Site,
ANY, MLA Quarterly, October, say, or books like Imagologies,
stuff by Mark Taylor, Virillo, Tschumi, Baudrillard, and on and
on of the brickspace media, when we have this superior list
that lets us exchange our very own neo-confidence and
post-radiance affirmations?
In my case, I poke fun (bashingly) here at all beloved
brickspace fundamentalists like I do in person when given a
chance: they are far too serious (non-bashingly) in public
fora to be taken seriously, nor as effective as they are
witheringly aggressive (bashingly) in private. It's the public
stage and media that seems to bring out the caution in them and
makes them Bambies for the vultures. So they mea culpa.
For me, decon in all its guises and in all killing fields
fosters a love of deflating the canonical, and I say all praise
to it, and be sure to emulate with creative condescension and
liberating misunderstanding. Beloved Paul Goldberger and even
more Beloved Michael Sorkin have been doing it to tickle the
famous, and their Janus-corpus-masturbasus is an inspiration.
And, when given a chance, I'll cheerfully shovel decon and all
other neo-, post-, retro-, greeno- and historic-offal to
fertilize this maturating cornfield of Fill-in-Your-Own-Blanks
(tm).
John
>I think you guys need to understand the differences
>between Deconstruction and Deconstructivist
>architecture. To call Eisenman a Desconstruction
>architect is a sign of your ignorance (PLACING THE
>BEAVIS AND BUTTHEAD COMMENT ASIDE). Last year I
>posted a definition of Deconstructivist architecture
>(fall 1993?) and it should be alive and kicking in the
>archives of this bullitenboard. Please read it and
>then get back to us. (In other words, How can you
>compare apples (Eisenman) to oranges (Ghery)?)
>
>John Pohorylo
>NJIT Arch Grad Student
>Busy apple picking in upstate N.Y.
Mark, John, David, everybody,
Except on this list I had not heard anyone use the term "decon"
in quite a while, so I happily and gullibly, rose to the
occasion to misuse and abuse the term.
Whether "decon" means deconstruction, deconstructivist, de con
(as in the confidence game) or whatever, is just fine by me for
the language mavens advocate these liberating games of creative
misunderstanding and expropriation and exploitation of others'
earnest expolatories (and they disdain alliteration says Bruce
Robbins).
Last I heard from some of the archi-accused -- Zaha, Wolf, Leb,
even Mr. Giovannini -- at a party (!) they are as embarassed by
the "deconstructivists" term Joseph concocted as he is but
complained that their dim-witted competition would not forego
it's use as a pigeonholing putdown.
Even Derrida, excuse me, has written (in the authoritative NYT
Magazine (!)) that "deconstruction" has been absorbed into the
culture hence there is no longer a need to debate it or use a
term which has come to mean a zillion things. He specifically
attacked Joseph's hybrid as meaningless -- Derrida's highest
compliment. But note that the jounalistic sendup has become de
rigeur of the lingua franca of the avant garde.
OTOH, OTOH, does it matter if we have or have not absorbed the
latest and hottest defilements of, or by, Assemblages, Site,
ANY, MLA Quarterly, October, say, or books like Imagologies,
stuff by Mark Taylor, Virillo, Tschumi, Baudrillard, and on and
on of the brickspace media, when we have this superior list
that lets us exchange our very own neo-confidence and
post-radiance affirmations?
In my case, I poke fun (bashingly) here at all beloved
brickspace fundamentalists like I do in person when given a
chance: they are far too serious (non-bashingly) in public
fora to be taken seriously, nor as effective as they are
witheringly aggressive (bashingly) in private. It's the public
stage and media that seems to bring out the caution in them and
makes them Bambies for the vultures. So they mea culpa.
For me, decon in all its guises and in all killing fields
fosters a love of deflating the canonical, and I say all praise
to it, and be sure to emulate with creative condescension and
liberating misunderstanding. Beloved Paul Goldberger and even
more Beloved Michael Sorkin have been doing it to tickle the
famous, and their Janus-corpus-masturbasus is an inspiration.
And, when given a chance, I'll cheerfully shovel decon and all
other neo-, post-, retro-, greeno- and historic-offal to
fertilize this maturating cornfield of Fill-in-Your-Own-Blanks
(tm).
John