[The first part in what will certainly be a long series of posts highlighting the incorrect appropriation of the word 'deconstruct' from its root in literary criticism to something entirely different.]
On Friday my brother sent me an article about an Australian academic, Martin Jarvis, who is arguing that Bach's second wife wrote a number of classical pieces attributed to her husband. Jarvis first had the idea that some of Bach's work was written by someone else while studying at the Royal Academy of Music in London. He says:
"In 2001, I deconstructed the 'cello' pieces and came up with 18 reasons why they weren't written by Bach."Given that deconstruction has its origins in structural linguistics 'deconstructing' a piece of music is ludicrous. The colloquial use of the word is grating to those who know its actual meaning and can be confusing to those who do not. Unfortunately the colloquial use of the word is becoming more common. This is post is but a finger plugging a small crack of a bursting dam.
/end of William Safire moment
0 Comments:
Post a Comment