Elitism

Deconstructivism is not the same as deconstructionism or even deconstruction. Though they all sound the same, there are distinct differences. While Deconstructivism is a movement in architecture, deconstruction is an art/literary movement, or so I’ve gathered. Derrida is responsible for the art movement, and more or less the cause of the architecture that followed. His work was meant to exceed the power of language to convey meaning. He was extremely analytical in what he created to the point that he was almost “chewing without any food.” Is this what Deconstructivism is? Is it merely an over-analysis of past architecture? Benedikt makes the point that in order for Deconstructivism to be true to its meaning, it must analyze and deconstruct buildings that are vernacular, regular, and that aren’t apart of a modern movement. He believes that is unnecessary and redundant as those buildings are somehow already analyzed.
My biggest issue with his article is its implied elitism. At one point he says that ordinary people cannot understand sophisticated architecture. This attitude of snobbery is a trend in the field of architecture that annoys me. Why spend millions on a beautiful modern building if the only people that will appreciate it will be architects? Are we building architecture for the sake of architecture? If so, then this field is not what I thought it was. I realize, however, that many people are uneducated as to the nuances and elements of beauty within architecture and therefore wouldn’t appreciate it simply for the sake of ignorance. This is something that needs to be remedied and I think it would greatly benefit the study of architecture.

Quotes:

“Deconstruction is primarily a philosophy of writing and reading philosophy. But it is also a probing enquiry into the workings of language, ideas, and the whole human cultural enterprise.”

“It is to convulsively tear apart the negative side, that which makes it the reassuring other surface of the positive.”