What Meredith Tenhoor calls the analysis of the political economy of architecture, its production, consumption and distribution. This sets a question that I have always struggled to vocalize but never been able to express as eloquently as Derrida does. I used to think of the bridge as a form of transgression, or as a form of redirecting flows. Some evident questions might be, how come the bridge doesn't fall? Why is it built in this or this other style? Which is the structural strategy? etc. But to me the most radical question would be, why is the bridge there? Why a bridge and why in this location? which is its purpose? what is this connecting or bridging? in the interest of who?
For so Derrida has been labelled as a forerunner of deconstructivism. I believe that an action of peeling apart is most evidently achieved, but creativity needs to appear propositive. We cant be merely pulling the pieces apart, or rearranging them uncritically.
Again, I think this question is or should be the base of any enquiry that hopes to be truly radical.
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario