In order to Desconstruct Art You Must Know Art?
 

Do you agree with this statement. Do you need to know about art, before going your own seperate ways, and destroying it?

nope.

But can't it be argue, that you could make better art if you know the basics, and just throw off some things that you do not like?

i wish you guys didn't use the word "deconstruct" without knowing what it means.

but if you're talking about the need to know what the fuck one is discussing before discussins it, the answer is an obvious "but of course..."

obvious everywhere except for american universities of course... there its the "theory" that you can apply to "anything" including shit you've never even heard of but can write authoritatively about... oh don't get me started... the biggest fucking con of the century...

not sure you really have to know something to deconstruct it. i guess a knowledge of it might help you deconstruct it in a more thorough manner or more informed way.

In order to deconstruct a building, do you have to know a building, or just explosives?

deconstucting art is much like deconstructing yourself, because to critique is to impose thoughts that you put onto a piece. the artist may not have even thought about the issues which you are raising when deconstructing a work. from my experience in experimental theatre; if we work with a text we pull the text apart line for line and impose meanings onto the work that the author may never have intended at all. this is part of making the text truly ours by imposing ourselves upon it. although some writers do not allow that, such as the estate of Samuel Beckett. A company here in Australia were ordered by the Beckett estate to remove any music from their production of Waiting for Godot or the production would be shut down.

it depends on how good a job you want to do of deconstructing it.

hmm.

it depends. i think you'll get taken less seriously for having an uneducated opinion on art; however, anything -- art or otherwise -- is going to make you feel SOMETHING (or nothing.. but nothing IS something, technically), so given that, we're all allowed to deconstruct as we please. we just might sound like idiots while doing so!

????

!!!

do you mean deconstruct as in analyse and form an opinion or deconstruct as in take apart physically?

or do you mean analyse and have a negative opinion on?

you dont really have to know anything. but your point is more understandable if you have reasoning behind it.

ie "I dont like it, its crap"

vs

"I dont like it, the colour interaction is badly executed"

but sure.. anyone can dislike art. You dont have to understand it to dislike it. But understanding it may make you enjoy it.. or at least understand why you dislike it. So it is beneficial to learn.

that is an incredibly simplified concept of art swa(y). There is a whole lot of art which base is made of structure ie: songs, architecture, opera, paintings, film, sculpture, pottery, glassware and so on and so forth. everything is an idea particularly before it is constructed however, and idea can carry on post construction phase.

What do you mean by "know art"... How can anyone "know" art?

I entirely agree with the first sentence of this post, and agree with the remainder also.

Unfortunately, there's a particularly Derridian irony to the fact that the word 'deconstruct' has been subject to effacement to the effect that it is now used as a synonym for 'analyse/ analysis'. Personally, it strikes me that this is far more widespread in the States than it is over this side of the Atlantic; it's not for me to say that this process is wrong (I'm not clever enough to take on the might of our beautifully fluid language) - I can, however, assert that it baffles me quite why people say 'deconstruct' when 'analyse' seems infinitely more fitting.

Deconstruction is, to my understanding, not a single process that may be applied to anything one wants to; it's a similar misunderstanding to the commonly held ones about the (already horrifically complicated/ convoluted) notion of postmodernism.

Anyway, it's the internet, and you've all switched off to watch porn or something by now. I think the answer to the question is probably "people say too many things. Less people speaking would be a good thing" so long as it's understood that I am not one of the people who should stop speaking.

Glice,

I think deconstruction and analysis go hand in hand, the first to break texts (ie: music, plays whatever) down in the sum of its parts to analyse the small portions to gain a deeper understanding of the greater unit and beable to give they greater unit a more thorough analysis.

Thanx, Glice.

Deconstruction does not equal destruction.

It is IMPOSSIBLE to perform a deconstructive act upon something one doesn't understand. Perfectly easy to destruct it, tho.

((By the way, the very word "postmodernism" gets bandied about quite a bit in the US by non-academics, not just "deconstruction." I always want to ask "Please define Postmodernism for me." It's a trick question, of course, but I bet I'd get quite a few verbose answers. Or baffled silence. Sorry for the snobbery, but I think that those who have trudged through any Derrida have more of a right to discuss these things than people who may have picked up on a few buzz words circulating in pop discourse.))

Also, not to be too boring or contradictory, but an analysis does not equal a critique.

terminal pharmacy,

I disagree, as I've said, you've described an analysis. Analyses can be broad or small, total or partial, but I don't yet see any need for 'deconstruction' to be applied here when, as far as I'm aware, it has a much more sophisticated definition than the incredibly base one you've described. I don't have the wherewithal to explain exactly what deconstruction 'is', but I'm quite confident that it's a great deal more complicated than merely looking at something's parts.

Perhaps I'm just bitter that I've read Writing and difference 3 times and still don't entirely get deconstruction, whereas everyone else seems content to let it be an incredibly simple thing? Don't want to come across like a wanker, not bothered if I do.

And thanks to you for espousing similar sentiments to my post.

The problem with these sorts of things are that you come across like an elitist prick, like patronising people by correcting their pronunciation/ spelling rather than listening to the sentiment of what they're saying. However, I do think Deconstruction is a much more sophisticated beast than its usage would suggest.

It would have been as simple as getting the Oxford Dictionary out and checking the meaning of both words. Deconstruction is not not the same as destruction, the same as saying that dismantling is not the same as destroying.