DECONSTRUCTION

My understanding of deconstruction is that it means to take something apart and break it down

I think that the basis of deconstruction revolves around inquiry. Rather than providing a resolution, deconstruction aims to provoke questions. Deconstruction can also be described as disjointed, or seeming to lack any kind of structure. Furthermore, there does not appear to be any clear hierarchy established amongst the various forms.

In the text, I think the author is charging that deconstruction is often misunderstood as merely an aesthetic genre or period in art history. She writes, "we are interested in de-periodizing the relevance of deconstruction. Instead of viewing it as an ‘ism’ of the late-80s early-90s, we see it as part of the ongoing development of design and typography as distinctive modes of representation” (Lupton 20).

At first, I didn’t understand why Derrida would make the claim that of phonetic writing not existing. It took a while of my reading and rereading Lupton’s text for me to begin to see his point.

Derrida was concerned with the opposition between speech and writing. Lupton argues that most scholars view writing as secondary to, or as an extension of speech because it evolved out of the necessity to depict spoken word.  In other words, writing is representative of speech.