With a personal working methodology primarily concerned with deconstruction, I am finding myself increasingly interested in narratives which may arise from reconstructing or reinterpreting semantic fragments.
My process typically begins with an existing semantic structure, which I deconstruct by classifying its syntactic and grammatical components. When presented outside their original context, these components convey new meaning through the way in which they are rearranged; new semantic patterns may emerge with each new logical arrangement. Instead of leaving the process of reconstruction to the viewer, this may also be an opportunity to insert narrative and the (subjective) perspective of the author, beyond the initial choice of semantic structure and its rearrangement.
The fundamental difference is the perception of the role of the author, which can be either to simply suggest and leave interpretation to the viewer, or to tell a coherent story in sequencing semantic fragments. The latter may involve editing fragments and rearranging them in narrative sequence. This is perhaps not so much a shift from, as it is an extension of the postmodern paradigm: from deconstructing ideas and messages, to one in which narrative is the method used to recombine fragments to form new semantic constructs.
Enjoyed reading this. Maybe you were never an orthodox Decon. Most of the Decons in the MOMA show didn’t have set philoshopical underpinnings like the literary crowd. Your original leanings seem structuralist concerning your interest in the elemental. A primitive language narrating through junctaposition, overlay, and erasure. Hejduk taught this in the 70’s at Cooper. I have been interested in this construct “as figural” ever since. Great post… I look forward to hearing more from you.