Deconstructionitivism

From what I've read, there seem to be several correlations between Deconstruction/Desconstructivism and what I believe to be the underlying principles that coincide between Suprematism, Formalism, and other "isms" of the Russian Avant Garde. Some of the abstract principles proposed by Derrida have previously emerged in the abstract arts, and I think his Deconstruction theory provides an alternative understanding of Suprematism that can help explain some the latter's more condoluded propositions. Deconstruction seems circular and self-supporting as our other relative radical movements, but I think the importance lies in the acknowledgement of alternative ways of thinking, more than in the persuit of truly Deconstructivist architecture, or truly Suprematist painting. All the theories seem to advance ideas of quintessential beings, which makes them seem creditable only on a self-informative basis. However, it is not the goal to define these essences, but to acknowledge their existence and forever persue their forms of manifestation. The same is true for art, literature, philosophy, theory, architecture, and every expressionistic outlet of human ingenuity. Micahel Benedict asks "why, if Deconstructivist buildings are wordless acts of architectural Deconstructionist criticism themselves, if they are texts before they are buildings, why then are they not best left unbuilt, in the interests of not compromosing their necessary rhetorical freedom?"; this coincides with the Suprematist ideal that a reproduction of nature will never be as magnificant as the natural form, so why attempt to re-create it in a lesser form? The answer seems to me that buildings will always share with theory certain essential devices (just as everything we interpret is shared by nature), but these devices are exclusive to no one discipline. These are the essential forms they ask us to acknowledge, seek, and pursue in the multitudes of possibilities that are available to us. And back to Deconstructivist theory; it could inform a design, or it could be applicable afterward by accident. Maybe the latter is true for one particular project of Peter Eisenman. If the purpose of his Social Housing Project on Kochstrasse in Berlin was to honestly express "grids at play", then it is absolutely a failure in the eyes of both theory and architectural experience. But if the goal was to have the grids play so much that they are no longer recognizable in our experience of the place, then it is a success, because it is has made the explicit implicit (a reversal of the reversal proposed by Derrida - the implicit becomes explicit). Michael Benedict says that "the deep critiques of architecture, local history, meaning, and method that went into the deesign of the building verbally and graphically, if they are anywhere on the site, are now hardly to be found;" the fact that the core design principles of the project are almost completely illegible, but remain the guiding design concepts nonetheless, make it truly Deconstructivist, whether by accident or intention, and our befuddled experience is richer because of it.