Glice,

I think deconstruction does not require context to find meaning but can still be used as an analytical tool but to analyse requires context otherwise what are you analysing. in my example of exp theatre, we will pull texts apart line for line and word next to word to really deconstruct the text completely, we can remove context to do this, however when we piece these things back together there must be some solid concepts and through lines to make a cohesive piece of work, however we can completely change the subject of a text which would then change any analytical outcome.

And I thought this thread has something to do with "dark art" >> reverse engineering. Twats!

no prior knowledge is necessary, but it surely does add more depth when someone with some sort of classical training is seen undoing it all and eschewing what's ingrained in them for something different.

is that what you meant?

HELL FUCK YES

When talking about music, or visual art or film, one HAS TO know music, visual art, or fil;m, in order to actually DECONSTRUCT anything. Otherwise you are just pissing in the wind and letting the urine spray splatter all over your own body

the term "deconstruct" does NOT mean destroy. It means using the basic concepts of an art form (film, visual art, scupture, music) to take apart what makes it "art" in the first place.

That CAN NOT be done without prior knowledge of what it is you are attemtping to "deconstruct".

only specific things can be deconstructed. ART, MUSIC, etc. are concepts that encompass a totality. painting is a specific type of art, so is musical composition, so is filmaking, so is dance, etc. It is these specific things that can be deconstructed.

fucking A those 46 credit hours of art history are paying off big time!

i'm not appologising for being educated or for the way i approach making my own art. deconstruction is not reverse engineering. usually i think your posts are great Tokolosh but I'm calling you out on this.

Yes, what Rob said. You said it better than I.

As far as I see it, one can't deconstruct what one doesn't know. And I'm using the term "deconstruct" as in to de-assemble from within using the logic it professes. To find the contradiction and make it fall like a house of cards.

However, this isn't to say that a person ignorant of art can't make art. Instead, this person builds up art with their own logic and this leads to some of the most original art. In fact, the most original of anything. Reinventing the wheel.


Also, as I philosophy study I see first hand the difference between deconstructionalists (who defend themselves as students) and actual students. A deconstructionalist will be excited to learn something in order to disprove it instead of to know it. While the student will be mindful of error, deconstructionalists hound for it. Usually it's the people that have the pipe dream of writing something novel or hold so prior prejudice that are ready to deconstruct a philosophy.

EDIT: nobody is going to read/respond to this :(

actually, pbradley, that was what i was trying to say, you just worded it better since i was drunk off of everclear when i wrote that! nice.

i think you can deconstruct something you do not know, it is a way to become familiar with something, deconstructing to find understanding

I have found this to be true generally in art circles as well

I know that Deconstructivism in philosophy is associated with people like Derrida, but I can never quite work out why this is the case.

Edit: intended for Pbradley

disagree.

sometimes art is made without you knowing it.

*I gathered. Good call!

i know how much you guys love wikipedia but i don't feel like copying my philosophy dictionary by hand. content yourselves with this:

Deconstruction is a term in contemporary philosophy, literary criticism, and the social sciences, denoting a process by which the texts and languages of Western philosophy (in particular) appear to shift and complicate in meaning when read in light of the assumptions and absences they reveal within themselves. Jacques Derrida coined the term in the 1960s, and proved more forthcoming with negative, rather than a pined-for positive, analyses of the school.
Subjects relevant to deconstruction include the philosophy of meaning in Western thought, and the ways that meaning is constructed by Western writers, texts, and readers and understood by readers. Though Derrida himself denied deconstruction was a method or school of philosophy, or indeed anything outside of reading the text itself, the term has been used by others to describe Derrida's particular methods of textual criticism, which involved discovering, recognizing, and understanding the underlying—and unspoken and implicit—assumptions, ideas, and frameworks that form the basis for thought and belief, for example, in complicating the ordinary division made between nature and culture. Derrida's deconstruction was drawn mainly from the work of Heidegger and his notion of destruktion but also from Levinas and his ideas upon the Other.



-----



now, which one of you has been "deconstructing" lately? please, show us.

--

now instead of compounding the original misdirection of this post you could simply use the word "analyze". that's right. or "analyse" if you are british. unless everyone here is a deconstructionist. oh im getting cranky, ha ha ha. that's what i get for taking the internet seriously. but... please????

What a thoroughly postmodern post, !"£$%. I've got post-structuralist hard over that. Gnostic on brother!

i loathe wikipeadia so i will not read this!

this is not a question of making art, it is a question of making art that PURPOSEFULLY deconstructs art, or music that deconstructs music, etc.

i'ts ok but keep quoting until someone reads it!