Deconstruction: .... what the...?

[retrotron]

Let's see if this thread goes anywhere.

So I've noticed that the term "deconstruction" is now an accepted part of the Flash scene's vocabulary. I'm curious as to what you all think "deconstruction" means. It seems like it's slipped into the vocabulary, but nobody bothered to define it.

Humor me. Give me your own personal definition, what you think it means. And in your definition, please indicate whether you think it is a verb (i.e. something you do, an activity/method) or a noun (i.e. a descriptive term, describing a property of things, what things are as opposed to what you do).

[Sualdam]

That second thing - more or less.

I've been getting technical newletters through talking about 'deconstructing a FLA' and after my initial (incorrect) assumption that it meant hacking into a SWF, I quickly realised it meant 'this is how this named website was built'.

It is a misnomer even in that sense, because you obviously don't get enough info to actually replicate the site, but it is a useful insight nonetheless.

It could clearly also mean that other thing you said if someone so desired.

[Sualdam]

Just had a thought (and boy, was it lonely :))

The definition could depend whether one was true to Flash or just a pl4in th33f :D

[annexion]

:p I actually laughed at that one.

[retrotron]

Ha ha, yeah sualdam, I liked that last one. :D

[subquark]

'deconstructing a FLA' trying to figure out a fla that Retrotron and CyanBlue made for you and messing it up in the process :p

actually, a verb: 1) reverse engineering a fla to copy and (presumably) learn how it was done (ie, rip), 2) looking at the whole and trying to determine it's components (not MM components), 3) what happens when your olive flops out of the martini inadvertently, 4) :confused:

[retrotron]

Hey subquark, those sound like technical definitions (at least number one did), did you look them up somewhere? If so, where? This is fascinating. :)

[subquark]

no, just sounds like what it is. plus, there are some books called Deconstructing Flash that are okay.

[retrotron]

Yeah, those deconstruction books are what I'm referring to, it's all over in the Flash literature . . . deconstruction.

[Sualdam]

And don't forget my earlier example - that I'm actually receiving literature by email that 'decontructs FLAs' in precisley that (good) way.

To be honest, I think that associating it with the bad thing is simply a mistake because of what 'deconstruction' looks and sounds like. It DOES bear some superficial resemblance to 'decompiling', after all :)

Let's start a front right now: all non-script kiddies refuse categorically to associate 'deconstructing FLAS' with the bad stuff because that's NOT what it means.

Agreed? :)

[retrotron]

Definitely. Yeah, Sualdam, you're on the money.

Decompiling....now that's an interesting connection.

[Sualdam]

But surely that's why you asked in the first place :confused:

Deconstruction is seen (incorrectly) as ripping SWFs.

Decompiling definitely IS about ripping SWFs.

I can just see another global 'dumbing down' exercise on the horizon as lots of thick people, with sun allergies through spending 23 hours a day in front of a monitor, all over the world end up redefining a perfectly logical term into something else entirely (and probably with a 'z' in it somewhere).

:D

[retrotron]

Ha ha, a "z". That's funny.

I actually asked out of curiosity. I'm a philosopher by trade, and I spend a lot of time studying the contemporary thinker Jacques Derrida. Derrida, of course, invented the term "deconstruction". In the world of philosophy, it has taken an undeserved bad rap just like it may be here in the flash world. People in the academy (especially in literature circles) misinterpret it all the time and take it to mean something it does not. So I'm just curious to see which of the meanings have trickled into the Flash world, and if there are any new meanings that have arisen here (which is entirely possible since the term has gone relatively undefined in Flash circles). It seems that much of the "negative" connotations of the philosophical and literary term have trickled into the Flash world too. I'm with you, there's a beneficial and healthy meaning to it, and that's what we should pursue.

[Sualdam]

Yeah, I wasn't getting at you.

I just thought it was pretty obvious that 'decompiling' activities were on the fringe of the topic right from the start. That's what other people assumed it meant. :)

[subquark]

non-script kiddies :( oh that would be me . . .

I think that most words with a prefix of "de" will be viewed as somewhat negative (but not web sites with the suffix .de). However, I agree that there is a HUGE difference between deconstruct and decompile. To see someone's deconstruction of a flash thing is very interesting and educational.

[retrotron]

Yeah, I'm with you cats.

[derrida]

hi
i`m just learning flash, but as a person with a second degree in philosophy, and contemporary french philosophy as my major, the ideas that was presented here are not akin with the deconstructive way of thinking, or even better with the way derrida think. the notion that one can take apart somthing into its fundamental parts and treat them as such is the very idea that deconstruction deconstruct.
i have no idea how this line of thought came into flash, but if someone can elaborate about it i will be thunkfull.

Derrida:)
sorry that is my nick name here

[retrotron]

Hi derrida, I'm a professional philosophy person too, and a long time reader of Derrida as well. Yes, you are right, 'deconstruction' as it's used in the Flash community is nowhere near what Derrida himself is talking about. Since this will probably only be interesting to you and me, I'll just say to anybody not interested in philosophy to ignore my boring post. =)

The story goes like this. First, in the 1970s the Yale school of literary criticism started the 'deconstruction' movement in literary theory. The error of their interpretation is that they took 'deconstruction' as a verb rather than as a noun, which is to say they understood 'deconstruction' as an active process performed by the reader to take apart a text. Derrida, of course, insists that the Yale school has misread him, for 'deconstruction' as he presents it is a property of the text, something the text does on its own, not something we do. In any case, it was the Yale school that brought 'deconstruction' into the world of literary theory, and they introduced the term as an active model of analysis rather than as a property of the text. Second, the graphic design community started reading literary theory, including the Yale school of deconstruction. They picked up on the 'deconstruction' idea and we saw a 'deconstruction' movement in graphic design in the 1990s. Third, Flash artists began reading graphic design theory, and encountered 'deconstruction' there. As far as I remember, the first significant use of the term 'deconstruction' was in that 'deconstrukt' book, where they said the aim of the book is to 'deconstruct' their website, and then they proceeded to take apart the fla and explain how it worked. In the Flash community, the term has basically been used in that way ever since.

So that's the story. There are probably some other influences here and there, so my telling is likely too simple, but that gives you the general idea. As you can see, the term has been appropriated by a number of different communities, each one not trained in the field from which they appropriated the term, and hence the term as we see it in the Flash community looks very different from how it looks in the phenomenology community.

[pixelwit]

You smart people make things too difficult. To "construct" something is to "build" it. To "DE-construct" something is to "UN-build" it. "Unbuilding" or "deconstructing" would seem to differ from destroying or exploding the initial construction and be more of an orderly disassembly of said construction. To me, deconstructing may even imply a "reverse" order of assembly though I don't think it's necessarily correct. I also get the feeling that deconstruction is done with the intent of reconstructing either a replica or a modified version of the original.

As to whether it's a verb or a noun, I think it's both, just like "construction". The act of building or that which is built.

But then again, what the heck do I know?

-PiXELWiT
http://www.pixelwit.com

[derrida]

hi
its perfectly fine to understand deconstruction in terms of building or rather de-builing:). but the subject here is different, as i see it. it is:if there is a "thought movment" that is called deconstruction, what can it be or what can it add to the flash community? there is a deconstructive school of thought and it has influenced other realms outside philosophy and literature.
now what exactly it contribute to flash? i have no idea. i even suspect that it has none. but some people use that term to indicate such an influence, so the issue is on the table.
the "distortion" of the word as it was concived within philosophy is possible. more than this, this "distorion" is an integral part of language`s playfullness and intertextuality, its ability to be experimental.
as for me, i do not claim that one have to use the word in Derridian manner, if i did so i was acting in contrast to a deconstructive mode of thinking.
you are right to say that there is the DE and there is the RE, but the main thing to understand ( from a philosophical and deconstructive point of view) is that both are not centered around an individual item, an identity. to understand that whole dynamic will be too much for this my efforts here:)


derrida

[pixelwit]

hi
its perfectly fine to understand deconstruction in terms of building or rather de-builing:). but the subject here is different, as i see it. it is:if there is a "thought movment" that is called deconstruction, what can it be or what can it add to the flash community?I answered the question as it was asked, not as how I believe it was meant to be asked. I saw no mention of Philosophy or "thought movement" in the initial question.

As it applies to Flash, I believe my previous ~definition~ is fairly accurate.

Just because someone once used a word in a specific way does not mean every later incarnation of that word refers to the way that person used it.

If you want to debate whether Deridda meant for the word to be used as noun or as verb "when he used it" feel free but in my opinion, the root of the problem lies in the fact that he tried to break a complex topic down to one word and chose the ~wrong~ word (an ambiguous one) to do so.

-PiXELWiT
http://www.pixelwit.com

[Headshotz]

You smart people make things too difficult. To "construct" something is to "build" it. To "DE-construct" something is to "UN-build" it.
[/url]

Whoa, that does it for my brain :p

Construct: To stick a bunch of things together and see
what happens.

Deconstruct: To pull something apart and consume its content

- :confused: Headshotz

[pixelwit]

Whoa, that does it for my brain :pYes, I do tend to get highly technical at times. ;)
Deconstruct: To pull something apart and consume its contentI like the concept of "consuming" the content, it seems fitting as applied to Flash.

-PiXELWiT
http://www.pixelwit.com

[senocular]

note that Flash doesnt really support deconstructors ;)

[pixelwit]

So what's a "real" deconstructor as it applies to programming?

-PiXELWiT
http://www.pixelwit.com

[senocular]

its the opposite of a constructor, like you said. A constructor builds a class instance and a deconstructor takes it apart. Usually it involves freeing up memory taken by the instance. In flash, you dont have to worry about that so usually deconstructors arent needed. However, they can still be implemented for things like removing the instance from listener lists. Its a little more easy with movie clip instances since you just override removeMovieClip, but for regular objects you have to retain a reference to the object and manually call your deconstructor when you're through using it ;)

[pixelwit]

So a constructor is like:
myArray = new Array();
???

If so, is the whole statement a constructor or just part of it?
...A constructor builds a class instance and a deconstructor takes it apart. Usually it involves freeing up memory taken by the instance. In flash, you dont have to worry about that so usually deconstructors arent needed...
Now I'm curious... if a constructor "builds" and a deconstructor "unbuilds" isn't "removeMovieClip" then a deconstructor? Or is it not technically a deconstructor as the clip was never constructed because you can't do:
myClip = new MovieClip();

-PiXELWiT
http://www.pixelwit.com

[oldnewbie]

What a waste of time! :rolleyes:
Think this thread should be moved to a semantic forum!

What's a obfuscating constructor?

[senocular]

What a waste of time! :rolleyes:
Think this thread should be moved to a semantic forum!

I'll see what I can do about getting a semantic forum made :) Thanks for the suggestion (though I dont know how far my moderator powers really go ;))

[senocular]

Now I'm curious... if a constructor "builds" and a deconstructor "unbuilds" isn't "removeMovieClip" then a deconstructor? Or is it not technically a deconstructor as the clip was never constructed because you can't do:
myClip = new MovieClip();

-PiXELWiT
http://www.pixelwit.com

In a way, removeMovieClip can be seen as a deconstructor, though it isn't in the practical sense, so much. MovieClips are a little odd in that they have that hidden connection with the timeline - something that's not exactly explitly spelled out on the programming side of things. The removeMovieClip has special "connections" to the Flash player that allows it to more or less deconstruct the object in the sense that it is freed from the timeline. I would say that it is, rather, more of a method providing access to what is the internal deconstructor for the MovieClip instance. But I have no idea how it is handled internally, and whether or not the movieclip is completely freed when removed (I suspect not, at least not right away for performance reasons in the Flash player).

[pixelwit]

So Flash has/uses native deconstructors, we can't access them directly, but we can write our own functions to implement a deconstructor's behavior.

And a deconstructor's behavior or "function" is to essentially to remove every trace of an object (or is it a variable?)?

I think I got it.

-PiXELWiT
http://www.pixelwit.com

[oldnewbie]

I demand your pusher's name!