Ray,
Mark's book is not a re-reinterpretation. It is original thought. I had
personally secured a copy of his dissertation from the University of New
Zealand in 1987 that is the original approach he took (the book is a
complete reworking of the unpublished dissertation). A few years back
when Derrida came to Columbia to lecture, Wigley hosted the event whereby
Derrida acknowleged Mark and his achievements. Mark did work that claims
that when deconstruction came to architecture it had to change. So i see
your resistance to read Wigley as resistance to maintain architecture as
a subordinate discipline to philosophy. That creates the very kind of
problems most of the doubters would criticize.
sorry to sound tenatious about this. IT IS the point!
s t e p h e n
Mark's book is not a re-reinterpretation. It is original thought. I had
personally secured a copy of his dissertation from the University of New
Zealand in 1987 that is the original approach he took (the book is a
complete reworking of the unpublished dissertation). A few years back
when Derrida came to Columbia to lecture, Wigley hosted the event whereby
Derrida acknowleged Mark and his achievements. Mark did work that claims
that when deconstruction came to architecture it had to change. So i see
your resistance to read Wigley as resistance to maintain architecture as
a subordinate discipline to philosophy. That creates the very kind of
problems most of the doubters would criticize.
sorry to sound tenatious about this. IT IS the point!
s t e p h e n