Grafitti somewhere on a wall in Bucuresti, October 2011.
Deconstruction is not a theory that simply applies, deconstruction is, I consider deconstruction, what happens, is what happens.
So, you don`t have to, let`s say, rhetorically and dangerously speak of deconstruction when something is destroyed.......
The fact that in some of the works there is no frame, does not mean there is no frame: there is a frame that is not simply circumscribing the work, but which is constituted by the very form so that, we know where to remove the work.
It wouldn`t be any work of art without a frame, especially where there is a market. If you want to identify a work of art and put it on a wall in a gallery or to sell it on the market, you have to have a frame.
There would be no field of art, no history of art, no discourse on art, and no market without a frame.
And then there are artists that attempt to remove, to destroy or to deconstruct if you want, to question the very existence, the very effect of the frame, but then, they have to disappear as artists producing works of art.
The idea of art cannot be, let`s say, constituted or dealth with without some frame.
Excerpted from "Deconstruction Is What Happens: An Open Discussion with Jacques Derrida"
