This ongoing discussion on the merits and inadiquacies of
deconstruction and deconstructivism is all very interesting, but I think a new
question needs to be asked.
What does it mean to me? What is the relevance of this thing to my
life, or life in general? Isn't this art for art's sake? Isn't this "style"
just an intellectual forray into a new realm? You can argue this architecure
is asking/answerin
answering important questions in today's world, but this is also architecture.
This is also a shelter, a thing for people. This is a used space, not only
used by the philosophers and mytic poets to expound their theories and mentally
masterbate, but also used by the average Joe. How does this architecture
answer his/her questions, address his/her needs/desires? If this is just an
architecture that looks cool and does not recognize or address people (all
people), then what lasting value does it have? It is just a fad. If this is
the case, then Bevis and Butthead (fads in their own right) are adequate
representitives of the movement. If, however, this architecture is more than
its surface features, if it does fulfill needs not addressed by other means,
then it is something to be respected and not degraded.
chew on that bone, Mark.
Matthew Baron, card-carrying member of the human race, Ball State University
deconstruction and deconstructivism is all very interesting, but I think a new
question needs to be asked.
What does it mean to me? What is the relevance of this thing to my
life, or life in general? Isn't this art for art's sake? Isn't this "style"
just an intellectual forray into a new realm? You can argue this architecure
is asking/answerin
answering important questions in today's world, but this is also architecture.
This is also a shelter, a thing for people. This is a used space, not only
used by the philosophers and mytic poets to expound their theories and mentally
masterbate, but also used by the average Joe. How does this architecture
answer his/her questions, address his/her needs/desires? If this is just an
architecture that looks cool and does not recognize or address people (all
people), then what lasting value does it have? It is just a fad. If this is
the case, then Bevis and Butthead (fads in their own right) are adequate
representitives of the movement. If, however, this architecture is more than
its surface features, if it does fulfill needs not addressed by other means,
then it is something to be respected and not degraded.
chew on that bone, Mark.
Matthew Baron, card-carrying member of the human race, Ball State University