In response to John Pohorylo:
I feel you are offended by my comments; I'm sorry---I don't intend to offend
anyone, but if I have, I apologize. You keep bringing up Beavis and Butthead
as though I'm being some disrespectful monster or something; believe me, I'm
not---but I'm not above poking fun at institutions, which is exactly what
Eisenman, Gehry, Beavis and Butt-head all have in common---don't you get it?
These four are more alike than you'd think.
You're trying to suck me in and reveal my ignorance of Derrida and decon with
your 6 question pop quiz. I will answer only as appropriate:
1. The Vitruvian Acid Test is part of my development of a personal design
philosophy. It holds that architecture 1)is well-constructed using materials
appropriate to the overall context (firmity); 2)is considerate of the
functional requirements of client, user, context, program (commodity) and;
3)is uplifting of the spirit of client, users and society as a whole (delight).
These include a concern for the environment, and a holistic approach to
context.I believe that the site, the program, the client, the program and the
context
will tell me everything I need to make a piece of architecture that meets the
Acid Test.
Note that context goes far beyond merely the style of the surrounding
buildings.It includes that, the socialogical makeup, the environmental
conditions, the
economic situation, etc.
There is much overlap between all these, and very little that fits neatly
into categories.
I feel this will lead me to a human architecture of experience---some would
say "organic."
2. I don't know, but I'm sure you'll tell us.
3. You tell me; I thought THEY couldn't even tell the difference, and would
deny it anyway!
4. Call me stupid, but I tried to read Derrida once and got a headache.
5. Decon is a brand of rodenticide, not insectacide. So what if I call it
"Decon?" You know what I mean, don't you? Besides, it saves network resources.
6. I didn't say that Derrida was useless; in fact, I said his theories can be
applied "as a mirror" in which to study our notions of architecture and
our prejudices and preconceptions. That's a pretty definite use, I'd say.
I just don't think that these theories make for good BUILDINGS!
Also, why should I respect Derrida?
To end: Your closing paragraph gives me a headache, and by the possibly
intentional misapplication of punctuation that fails to seperate two
distinct thoughts, you have reduced your statement to something less than
meaningful.
And besides, you still haven't explained why we should even bother to apply
Derrida to architecture!
mark
I feel you are offended by my comments; I'm sorry---I don't intend to offend
anyone, but if I have, I apologize. You keep bringing up Beavis and Butthead
as though I'm being some disrespectful monster or something; believe me, I'm
not---but I'm not above poking fun at institutions, which is exactly what
Eisenman, Gehry, Beavis and Butt-head all have in common---don't you get it?
These four are more alike than you'd think.
You're trying to suck me in and reveal my ignorance of Derrida and decon with
your 6 question pop quiz. I will answer only as appropriate:
1. The Vitruvian Acid Test is part of my development of a personal design
philosophy. It holds that architecture 1)is well-constructed using materials
appropriate to the overall context (firmity); 2)is considerate of the
functional requirements of client, user, context, program (commodity) and;
3)is uplifting of the spirit of client, users and society as a whole (delight).
These include a concern for the environment, and a holistic approach to
context.I believe that the site, the program, the client, the program and the
context
will tell me everything I need to make a piece of architecture that meets the
Acid Test.
Note that context goes far beyond merely the style of the surrounding
buildings.It includes that, the socialogical makeup, the environmental
conditions, the
economic situation, etc.
There is much overlap between all these, and very little that fits neatly
into categories.
I feel this will lead me to a human architecture of experience---some would
say "organic."
2. I don't know, but I'm sure you'll tell us.
3. You tell me; I thought THEY couldn't even tell the difference, and would
deny it anyway!
4. Call me stupid, but I tried to read Derrida once and got a headache.
5. Decon is a brand of rodenticide, not insectacide. So what if I call it
"Decon?" You know what I mean, don't you? Besides, it saves network resources.
6. I didn't say that Derrida was useless; in fact, I said his theories can be
applied "as a mirror" in which to study our notions of architecture and
our prejudices and preconceptions. That's a pretty definite use, I'd say.
I just don't think that these theories make for good BUILDINGS!
Also, why should I respect Derrida?
To end: Your closing paragraph gives me a headache, and by the possibly
intentional misapplication of punctuation that fails to seperate two
distinct thoughts, you have reduced your statement to something less than
meaningful.
And besides, you still haven't explained why we should even bother to apply
Derrida to architecture!
mark