Just found this. I enjoyed decon, both reading about it and the architecture it created (at least some of it). It was the 'beginning' for me and I look back fondly on that time in architecture and my life.
same here...
it was not the beginning for me, but yes, i used to love the architecture it created, and yes, it also reminds me of that phase of my life.
Say whatever you say bout him, but ive seen him in person and he surely rocked!
The only book he wrote where I really understood (at least parts of it) was "spectres de marx". The rest, I really didn't get much. In architecture, back in the 90's, it seemed that deconstruction could also relate to any contemporary French philosopher. I'm more into Deleuze. But it's deffinitely the end of something...
Taking things apart must show some vaste ,then putting it together again without expenses or havint the same strength with fewer members must make different architecture, but when structures is cubes ,cylinders and others primitives then form is limited to these means, I can understand it about structures, like making a very mashin like structure make the attitude but still form is no part of it.
If you draw slices of a round building say 17 different cake slices, what to use that for , to se the 2D outlines os a particular slice make no slice, not even when you place all slices to show the vertical outlines of the round building, ------- using words, saying you sweep just one profil that determine the round shape swepped round or halve round and offset 9 meters ti form an U seen from top, that make sense, then words can build the form if this is how deconstructivism shuld be understood. Now you can change and fold the framework even in vawes supporting a strict geometrie ,now ords realy start to work, realy words would be better than a build memorial they even could last longer, but it's not words but vision that make a wonder ;))
It can't be over finding the essence or building nice.
This is one of those times where your 3d honeycomb should not enter the comversation. This is one of those times where you should probably exit stage left, as the Pink Panther cartoon would say....i think, but anyway bye!
well said moratto.
and like many here that have attempted to read his stuff, he was an innovator. I've never had the opportunity to see him speak or meet him as some have, but somehow he has and will continue to inspire those of us that make our feable attempts at an original thought.
It is not whether you succeed or not.....but whether you attempt.
'Acts of Literature' is a collection of his writings that I can dip into every couple of years and each time find something new and compelling to think about that I didn't find the time before. That's the magic of it for me.
It's more fun reading the non-architecture pieces, from the time before he was playing with Eisenman, because you can make your own connections. Not fully understanding Derrida is part of the freedom he offered, the misreading he allowed (and would have celebrated), the creative spark you can glean from even partially comprehending his analyses.
One other recommend: 'Memories of the Blind' is a fascinating exploration of self-representation. It's beautifully illustrated with paintings and drawings from the Louvre that he used to develop his riffs on vision, portraiture, and what the artists' did that may be intentional or not-so-intentional.
Agree with Steven Ward. I saw him once in a lecture with Tchumi. It didn't really feel like they had anything to do together, or that they were talking about the same stuff. The problem of deconstruction in architectecture was that before they could reflect on the true possibility of a language to mean something, they had first to consider architecture as a language, with its word, grammar, letters etc.. shared by everybody in the same way, just as a language. The problem is that you can consider architecture that way, but it's not given as a language.
So guys like Eisenman or Tchumi had to pretend that there was a basic language for architecture (Corbu and Terragni for Eisenman, Russian constructivism for Tchumi), which is exactly the opposite of the work of Derrida. He was somehow trying to reveal that, in fact, ther's no such thing as language, ther no such thing as a direct relation betwenn form and meaning.
He sure was misunderstood by architect.
So Tchumi and Eisenman were in the audience of structuralists at Derrida's 1967-8(?) speech at Johns Hopkins and 35 years later they are still doing that structuralist thing and quoting Derrida?
Oct 12, 04 12:43 pm ·
·
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.
The End of Decon :: Derrida Dies
Just found this. I enjoyed decon, both reading about it and the architecture it created (at least some of it). It was the 'beginning' for me and I look back fondly on that time in architecture and my life.
Peace.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3729844.stm
end of decon ?
same here...
it was not the beginning for me, but yes, i used to love the architecture it created, and yes, it also reminds me of that phase of my life.
Say whatever you say bout him, but ive seen him in person and he surely rocked!
love the speed architects punch. move on to the next wall.
ice alltheway..
The only book he wrote where I really understood (at least parts of it) was "spectres de marx". The rest, I really didn't get much. In architecture, back in the 90's, it seemed that deconstruction could also relate to any contemporary French philosopher. I'm more into Deleuze. But it's deffinitely the end of something...
time to watch this again...
This is what we were 'deconstructing' back then. Good times.
Taking things apart must show some vaste ,then putting it together again without expenses or havint the same strength with fewer members must make different architecture, but when structures is cubes ,cylinders and others primitives then form is limited to these means, I can understand it about structures, like making a very mashin like structure make the attitude but still form is no part of it.
If you draw slices of a round building say 17 different cake slices, what to use that for , to se the 2D outlines os a particular slice make no slice, not even when you place all slices to show the vertical outlines of the round building, ------- using words, saying you sweep just one profil that determine the round shape swepped round or halve round and offset 9 meters ti form an U seen from top, that make sense, then words can build the form if this is how deconstructivism shuld be understood. Now you can change and fold the framework even in vawes supporting a strict geometrie ,now ords realy start to work, realy words would be better than a build memorial they even could last longer, but it's not words but vision that make a wonder ;))
It can't be over finding the essence or building nice.
Per -
This is one of those times where your 3d honeycomb should not enter the comversation. This is one of those times where you should probably exit stage left, as the Pink Panther cartoon would say....i think, but anyway bye!
eisenman's probably a wreck over this...to this day he consistenty references derrida.
derrida often complained about being misunderstood by architects.
... and misunderstood he should have been...
I am sad that Derrida has past away.
True original thinkers are not born everyday.
Deconstruct in Peace, Jacque
well said moratto.
and like many here that have attempted to read his stuff, he was an innovator. I've never had the opportunity to see him speak or meet him as some have, but somehow he has and will continue to inspire those of us that make our feable attempts at an original thought.
It is not whether you succeed or not.....but whether you attempt.
Hi
"It is not whether you succeed or not.....but whether you attempt."
Tja ..... well,,,, Eh
So it don't mean anything if they understand the words and it do not need to prove in real ?
'Acts of Literature' is a collection of his writings that I can dip into every couple of years and each time find something new and compelling to think about that I didn't find the time before. That's the magic of it for me.
It's more fun reading the non-architecture pieces, from the time before he was playing with Eisenman, because you can make your own connections. Not fully understanding Derrida is part of the freedom he offered, the misreading he allowed (and would have celebrated), the creative spark you can glean from even partially comprehending his analyses.
One other recommend: 'Memories of the Blind' is a fascinating exploration of self-representation. It's beautifully illustrated with paintings and drawings from the Louvre that he used to develop his riffs on vision, portraiture, and what the artists' did that may be intentional or not-so-intentional.
Agree with Steven Ward. I saw him once in a lecture with Tchumi. It didn't really feel like they had anything to do together, or that they were talking about the same stuff. The problem of deconstruction in architectecture was that before they could reflect on the true possibility of a language to mean something, they had first to consider architecture as a language, with its word, grammar, letters etc.. shared by everybody in the same way, just as a language. The problem is that you can consider architecture that way, but it's not given as a language.
So guys like Eisenman or Tchumi had to pretend that there was a basic language for architecture (Corbu and Terragni for Eisenman, Russian constructivism for Tchumi), which is exactly the opposite of the work of Derrida. He was somehow trying to reveal that, in fact, ther's no such thing as language, ther no such thing as a direct relation betwenn form and meaning.
He sure was misunderstood by architect.
So Tchumi and Eisenman were in the audience of structuralists at Derrida's 1967-8(?) speech at Johns Hopkins and 35 years later they are still doing that structuralist thing and quoting Derrida?
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.