John might get on me about this, cause we went around the block on this a
while ago, but the argument that the representation of bldgs taking
precedence over the tangible object as a locus of criticism and theory is
abetted most perniciously by CAD and its discontents. Every advance in the
technology of representation is immedaiately appropriated by the purveyors of
graphic pyrotechnics sloughing off paper projects as theory and art, never
having to submit to the temporal stricutures of building. Given the lib/prog
bent to the arch-lit-crit axis, it is ironic that these critical/theoretical
edificies claim to take on a staunchly free-market/republican hegemony that
is the architecture/development/construction industry in this country. But
they are so entirely marginal and dependent on the Graham foundation (not to
mention ego, PAP and assemblage; oh, and comers Culture Lab and Columbia
Documents Etc) that one wonders how this constitutes a critical discourse
when there seems to be no associated political/social practice.
flippantly
nic
while ago, but the argument that the representation of bldgs taking
precedence over the tangible object as a locus of criticism and theory is
abetted most perniciously by CAD and its discontents. Every advance in the
technology of representation is immedaiately appropriated by the purveyors of
graphic pyrotechnics sloughing off paper projects as theory and art, never
having to submit to the temporal stricutures of building. Given the lib/prog
bent to the arch-lit-crit axis, it is ironic that these critical/theoretical
edificies claim to take on a staunchly free-market/republican hegemony that
is the architecture/development/construction industry in this country. But
they are so entirely marginal and dependent on the Graham foundation (not to
mention ego, PAP and assemblage; oh, and comers Culture Lab and Columbia
Documents Etc) that one wonders how this constitutes a critical discourse
when there seems to be no associated political/social practice.
flippantly
nic