The entire idea of deconstruction is the manifestation of man's fledgling sense of self analysis. I say this because it is only relatively recently that we have truely begun to question our ideals and motifs for every single God forsaken thing that we do.
Well.... at least that's what modern day philosophers do. Wonder what all this philosophising and self discovery is about? wonder whether there is any direct beneficial good to come outta this.... well... you get some new marketing strategies... some new art movement... some form of radical therapy... and some may say..architecture.
Well, here's the tricky part. Transcendence of something so intangible into the tangible. The entire idea of ideal space created by movement, moulded by time and formed from a combination of necessity and convenience sets the entire idea of deconstruction in a very immaterial landscape.
The moment the architect puts a physical form to the idea it loses the entire generating force.
But... the question then is.... What about those architects who create designs and concepts based on so called `Deconstruction'? By what standards do we judge them.... how can we comprehend or even pass a just and balanced verdict without falling prey to individual preference?
The answer, i think is..... we can't. It seems like deconstruction flourishes now because it is a trend... and people perceive and like it on a purely visual level... because it is publicly accepted as visually stimulating in this time and age.
However, the true understanding of a work of a `decon' architect can only be done thru the reading of the various theories and derivative geometry that went into the planning of the space. Proper appreciation only comes with absolute understanding of the architect's psyche.- if there is anything worth looking for in there in the first place.(Like the example that Bourdieu gave about paintings.... most ppl just appreciate famous works because of the famous names attached to it... but not actually\
appreciating the work as it is intended by the artist)
Therefore, this type of architecture is indeed a very personal architecture. The forces which tear and twist and peel the building are clearest in the head of the creator....meant only to be fully appreciated by the creator. A personal, ideal space which he has manifested for the prevalent forces that course thru his mind..
Which, makes this form of architecture... a paradox. Because, architecture is for the public, meant to be appreciated by the masses..However, not everyone perceives the same way the creator perceives.... and therefore the observer might perceive the space as a space that is closest and most comfortable in meaning to himself/herself therefore.... creating the ideal space/personal space.
It is because of this reason that it is possible... just possible... that done in such a way, we could create a space that would incite the experiencer to rely on his/her deconstuctive tendencies to restructure the physical space into a space that makes sense to the mind.... creating a very personal ideal within the physicality built by the creator
And... that,... i think... would be effective deconstruction.
I hope it makes sense.....(ended kinda abruptly though).
back to Oddey's 'Totful' Spot.htm