Deconstruction Essay / Artwork

[Justsomeguy]

Hello everyone,

I just finished a theory based artwork that I thought might interest some of you. It's an essay on deconstruction that simultaneously deconstructs the very notion of an essay (I know that sounds somewhat convoluted). There is a pretty in depth explanation/analysis directly following the piece. You can find it here: Deconstruction Essay (http://www.highimpactart.org/deconstruction.html)

Giving a brief summery of deconstruction is neigh impossible for a few reasons. First of all, it is very, very complex. Secondly, it is intentionally nebulous (which allows it to be employed in a multitude of different fields including philosophy, literature, politics, ethics, art, and history). Lastly, it is self referential (i.e. deconstruction is inherently applicable to everything, including itself). This means that its definition is in constant flux.

An extreme over simplification would be to say that deconstruction is a textual strategy that makes the text's biases and preconceptions visible (I'm using the term 'text' here in the loosest possible sense -- basically it can be anything that you want to deconstruct. Everything from political theory, to fictional novels, to tv shows, to songs, to history, etc etc etc). Once those hierarchical biases ('x' is better than 'y', or 'a' is a precursor to 'b,' etc) are apparent it allows you to overcome them by finding examples of where the opposite holds true.

Far from destroying the work, it allows you to read it in a multitude of new ways.

. . . that's about a 20th of what's in the essay. And by essay I mean a video based poem with a strong aural component containing mostly other people's words (put into a new order, of course). You can read an actual real essay analyzing the piece directly following the video.

I hope that helps wet your appetite . . . though it probably didn't clarify much

Any critiques or general comments on the essay/artwork would be very much appreciated.

Thank you for your time,
-- Paolo Unger Dvorchik (http://www.highimpactart.org)

[blazeofglory]

I have gone through deconstructions essays. They are tough or I feel Derrida toughened it purposely thinking that in doing so he can prove his pride, that he could a great writer. But I do not think he was that great just by complicating the subject.

[caddy_caddy]

I read about Deconstruction and I found it really interesting:thumbs_up .
I wanna know more about it .
Thx a lot:thumbs_up

[blazeofglory]

Deconstruction is a post modern concept in literature and most readers find it a difficult subject indeed.

Deconstructionists often commoditize literature

[Kafka's Crow]

I have gone through deconstructions essays. They are tough or I feel Derrida toughened it purposely thinking that in doing so he can prove his pride, that he could a great writer. But I do not think he was that great just by complicating the subject.

There, I have deconstructed your post and your whole attitude towards this subject above. Accept it, you find it difficult. Fair enough, but it has nothing to do with the validity of this subject. I find it easy and acceptable. Derrida is the greatest, the easiest and the most accessable of the philosophers. I can't make much sense of Immanuel Kant, does it give me a right to say that he 'toughened' the Critique on purpose?

[Kafka's Crow]

Hello everyone,

I just finished a theory based artwork that I thought might interest some of you. It's an essay on deconstruction that simultaneously deconstructs the very notion of an essay (I know that sounds somewhat convoluted). There is a pretty in depth explanation/analysis directly following the piece. You can find it here: Deconstruction Essay (http://www.highimpactart.org/deconstruction.html)

Giving a brief summery of deconstruction is neigh impossible for a few reasons. First of all, it is very, very complex. Secondly, it is intentionally nebulous (which allows it to be employed in a multitude of different fields including philosophy, literature, politics, ethics, art, and history). Lastly, it is self referential (i.e. deconstruction is inherently applicable to everything, including itself). This means that its definition is in constant flux.

An extreme over simplification would be to say that deconstruction is a textual strategy that makes the text's biases and preconceptions visible (I'm using the term 'text' here in the loosest possible sense -- basically it can be anything that you want to deconstruct. Everything from political theory, to fictional novels, to tv shows, to songs, to history, etc etc etc). Once those hierarchical biases ('x' is better than 'y', or 'a' is a precursor to 'b,' etc) are apparent it allows you to overcome them by finding examples of where the opposite holds true.

Far from destroying the work, it allows you to read it in a multitude of new ways.

. . . that's about a 20th of what's in the essay. And by essay I mean a video based poem with a strong aural component containing mostly other people's words (put into a new order, of course). You can read an actual real essay analyzing the piece directly following the video.

I hope that helps wet your appetite . . . though it probably didn't clarify much

Any critiques or general comments on the essay/artwork would be very much appreciated.

Thank you for your time,
-- Paolo Unger Dvorchik (http://www.highimpactart.org)


I tried to 'read' your essay but the video would not play beyond the definition. Any difinition can be deconstructed. Your definiton gives a dictionary meaning but linguistically 'essai' still means 'to try' 'to attempt' as well as to write a composition in prose which is a later meaning given to the words after Michel de Montaigne wrote his Essais in 1580. Thus an essay is always a 'try' something tentative, non-conclusive and almost incomplete. There is nothing wrong with that because it leaves room for further debate, encourages diverse points of views and eliminates bigotry (that's why I love deconstruction!).

As far as deconstruction is concerned, it is a 'system' that is designed to find inconsistencies behind superficially stable and efficient systems. It gives voice to the voiceless, the oppressed and the unrepresentated. It opens up the debate and dynamically eliminates all existing and emerging blocks. By breaking-down boundaries and definitons, it opens them up for further development and modification. It deconstructs itself, constantantly and continually and criticizes and evaluates itself alongwith all other constructs. This is nothing new. Socrates deconstructed all existing knowledge by proclaiming that he knew nothing. Absolute truths are dangerous, ossification is the enemy. This becomes extremely crucial and most relevant in our time and age where mind-control and disinformation is as potent as information and freedom. We have to make our choices carefully, more carefully than the previous generations as our choices have more far-reaching consequences for the whole of the humankind who are more connected and interactive now than they were ever before. I read deconstruction as a habit of the mind to be absolutely and completely critically alert, able and ready to see behind the apparant stability given by definitions, media-reports and propaganda.

As far as your essay is concerned, it is a good start. You deconstruct the 'definition' of an essay which is a good starting-point. I wish I could see the whole video. I think you are on the right track. Ce n'est pas mal pour un premier essai!

[CognitiveArtist]

give credit where credit is due. Derrida is in no way easy or accessible, yet I think he had appreciation for his difficulty and challenging readability. Also I'm sure he strove to be tough purposely, although I think he had good reason to be. When you're discussing complicated subject matter you have to get complicated. His terse style is fine anyway, he is not at all the first thinker to write so tersely, it's just the subject matter is so unique it additionally makes his writing hard to grasp. This is why i think his writing fosters critical thought, it demands demanding interpretation.
Deconstruction, first and foremost, is a word/idea thats full of surprises. I think I'm starting to get the basic logic, but learning the full applicability and full sophistication of this method is another game altogether. Kafka's Crow gave a good description, deconstruction "attacks" perceived stabilities as to give voice to the voiceless, and brings out people and ideas that have fallen into the "margins". Deconstruction seems largely concerned with binaries/opposites and revealing the "given" hierarchies to them, whether they are upheld by commonsense or rigorous philosophy (such as the hierarchies of importance with essence vs appearance, writing vs speech, good vs evil etc).

Some nice websites on the basics of deconstruction and Derrida are Jacques Derrida (http://www.iep.utm.edu/d/derrida.htm) and Jacques Derrida (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/derrida/). The [I]Internet entry does a fine job of stressing the fundamental logic whereas the Stanford page offers some description and a partial example of deconstruction.

[Kafka's Crow]

It is working now, the video is. It is an excellent essay. I found your 'Bibliography' very interesting. You used online sources, not a single traditional book is mentioned there. We had an interesting discussion about ebooks and the future of reading recently. This is the shape of things to come.

[Mr. Vandemar]

Sorry that I had to point this out, but you said "relevation" instead of "revelation" in the video.

[Justsomeguy]

Sorry for the lapse in communique.

Thanks to everyone for your responses. I changed the format some so now it should be easier to read (the text is stationary), and the file is smaller so it should download faster.

Now onto the replies:

Blazeofglory: I think it's fair to say that Derrida intentionally complicated his works. You have to understand, however, that this was mainly to underscore his argument of infinite interpretation/recontextualization.

Kafka's Crow: Thanks for all your feedback. I certainly wouldn't consider it grad school/academic quality, but it was a lot of fun to do (We were all supposed to hand in 20 page papers on a subject we had explored. I handed my teacher a dvd and told him that he was either going to give me an 'A' or a 'F') You are right about the bibliography, that is probably the weakest part of the piece. I've actually read four or five of Derrida's essays, but I didn't have electronic versions of them and so couldn't search within them for the words I needed. I have nothing against electronic sources in general, but some of the ones I cited were certainly not up to par.

Vandemar: You are absolutely correct. Unfortunately I don't have the time/energy to redo it.


Non Sequitur:
Give me another month or two and I'll post an essay I'm working on (the topic is propaganda). It is by *far* the best essay I've ever written. Still have a lot of stuff I want to add though.

[blazeofglory]

An artist can be simple and he must disambiguate things. No branch of knowledge exists that can not be simplified by a creative mind, and Derrida has always been too difficult. We need someone who works on Derrida's work towards making them simple.