I must respond to John Tsuchiya latest post.
Who EXACTLY are you talking about when you say
Modernists have mistaken a tool for transforming
a function into reality (into a form) for
the function itself.
Who do you think the "Modernists" were and wha are "Post-Modernists"?
Ive been spending a lot of time of late trying to figure out Post Modern(ism).
There doesn't seem to be any "ism" there. Most of the writers on the
subject see itas a condition (Lyotard) or or something that has happened
(Baudrilard). I notice that archiect's have taken it up as a movement.
But, what are the tenents of this movement. Most of the work simply looks
like a return to Victorian eclecticism.
Please clarify.
- ray Lauzzana
Who EXACTLY are you talking about when you say
Modernists have mistaken a tool for transforming
a function into reality (into a form) for
the function itself.
Who do you think the "Modernists" were and wha are "Post-Modernists"?
Ive been spending a lot of time of late trying to figure out Post Modern(ism).
There doesn't seem to be any "ism" there. Most of the writers on the
subject see itas a condition (Lyotard) or or something that has happened
(Baudrilard). I notice that archiect's have taken it up as a movement.
But, what are the tenents of this movement. Most of the work simply looks
like a return to Victorian eclecticism.
Please clarify.
- ray Lauzzana