>On Wed, 8 Feb 1995, Mark Darrall wrote:
>
>> Steve,
>> FOUL! Implying David is sheerly lazy just because he chooses not to question
>> culture through architecture is a cheap, low blow, not to mention an afront
>> to those who would prefer to help grow a culture rather than tear one down.
>
>Thank you for the defense but some criticism I can only smile about.
>
>Sucher
>Garry will speak for himself, no doubt, but I don't think he was speaking
>of the 'irrelevance of it all' as if life and architecture is all some
>sort of light joke but about the dangerousness of people (designers and
>critics especially) who use big, fancy, pretentious words to discuss
>concepts and objects that indeed, upon contemplation, turn out to be
>miniscule and shallow.
>At least that's what I read in the text.
>David Sucher
sucher,
maybe my machine is in auto-edit mode, but the 'smile' quality of your
response (noted above) didn't come through down here...in fact your latest
response seems a bit paranoid...
rma
>
>> Steve,
>> FOUL! Implying David is sheerly lazy just because he chooses not to question
>> culture through architecture is a cheap, low blow, not to mention an afront
>> to those who would prefer to help grow a culture rather than tear one down.
>
>Thank you for the defense but some criticism I can only smile about.
>
>Sucher
>Garry will speak for himself, no doubt, but I don't think he was speaking
>of the 'irrelevance of it all' as if life and architecture is all some
>sort of light joke but about the dangerousness of people (designers and
>critics especially) who use big, fancy, pretentious words to discuss
>concepts and objects that indeed, upon contemplation, turn out to be
>miniscule and shallow.
>At least that's what I read in the text.
>David Sucher
sucher,
maybe my machine is in auto-edit mode, but the 'smile' quality of your
response (noted above) didn't come through down here...in fact your latest
response seems a bit paranoid...
rma