DECONSTRUCTION THEORY AS CULTURAL COLLAPSE
ALM No.70, November 2024
ESSAYS
It is an indisputable fact that the written word is, by its very nature, inherently deconstructive. The meaning of a given word is not necessarily related to the subsequent word in a sentence; rather, it has its own inherent meaning, which is influenced by a multitude of factors. This is why there is no commonly accepted argument or universally acknowledged meaning.
A word is, by its very nature, a means of conveying ideas. However, even in this capacity, words are unable to fully accomplish their intended purpose. The meaning of a sentence is inherently ambiguous, and thus a given sentence may be interpreted in a multitude of ways. This is the reason why a poem, a piece of fiction or even what are commonly referred to as sacred books can be interpreted in a multitude of ways. In light of these considerations, it is pertinent to inquire as to the veracity of this situation. The answer is straightforward: there is no such thing as absolute truth. The term "truth" is itself a polysemous word, as previously discussed. It is necessary to select a specific interpretation and, unfortunately, to disregard a universally accepted truth because it is not empirically verifiable. Similarly, the domain of painting is not immune to this phenomenon. In this context, we observe a multitude of creations, each eliciting a distinct set of sentiments from their respective audiences, whether positive or negative. It is possible that individuals may hold disparate views on the merits of a given artistic work. Some may hold the work in high regard, while others may find it lacking in merit. This leads to the question of whether the painting is, in fact, a good or a bad one. There is considerable divergence of opinion on this matter. In this context, the concept of art taste is irrelevant, as it is a subjective and ultimately unproductive notion. Instead, our focus is on the process of deconstruction, initially from the perspective of the artist and then from that of the broader public. While there are numerous taxonomic and chronological approaches to art history, it also acknowledges the existence of an intrinsic and ineffable quality that transcends these boundaries. This quality pertains to the capacity to recognise and appreciate beauty, regardless of its conventional categorisation or the perceived utility of the artistic expression in question.
In considering the field of music, it becomes evident that there exists a multitude of musical genres, each with its own distinctive characteristics. Among these, classical music stands out as a particularly intricate and multifaceted form of musical expression. Its intricate structure and sophisticated techniques are shaped by a deep-seated desire for expression and an underlying foundation in unconscious thought. What, then, is the result of this state of affairs? It is possible that the notes are written on a pentagram, with no apparent connection to the preceding notes. This exemplifies a further instance of deconstruction. While the musical outcome may be perceived as either excellent or ridiculous, depending on the individual, the composition remains a sound piece of music. This raises the question of how a composer can express their feelings via a musical composition if the audience interprets it in different ways. From the preceding analysis, it would be erroneous to conclude that the subject under discussion is entirely devoid of any structure or coherence.
It can be argued that there is no universal or common meaning attached to any given phenomenon. Furthermore, it is not possible to claim that we actively choose anything in our lives; rather, it could be proposed that we are influenced by a collective unconsciousness and by our genes, which originate from our distant past.
It is therefore illogical and unproductive to attempt to impose one's own order on everything. There is no reason to prioritise one's own point of view, as it is meaningless in itself and represents another example of the deconstruction of all things.
It would be interesting to ascertain whether Bach's music is, in fact, superior to Schoenberg's. People are inclined to gravitate towards simplicity. This is not to suggest that Bach's music is simplistic in its musical and compositional terms. Rather, it is the absence of serialism in his music that lends it a familiarity that is more readily accessible to a wider audience. In contrast, Schoenberg employs atonality and dissonance in his music, which the audience finds unfamiliar and therefore rejects. However, this rejection does not make Bach's music inherently superior to Schoenberg's. It is, rather, a psychological phenomenon and may be a consequence of a lack of education.
In any case, we have a dichotomy: on the one hand, music that is perceived as good, and on the other, music that is perceived as bad. This prompts us to revisit the foundational question of the significance of words. Can words and music notes, as symbols, genuinely encapsulate realities? Do these symbols offer the most precise depiction of our inner expressions? In my view, the answer to both hypothetical questions is negative.
The symbolic order (of language, etc.) is an imperfect structure that presents more complications than it solves.
Yiannis Panagiotakis (born January 1975, Greece) holds a PhD in Art History and History of the Medieval Era. He is a radio presenter and producer, as well as the proprietor of the Athens-based radio station Contemporary Classical Music Radio. He has authored nine books and numerous articles and essays published in theological and art-related academic journals.