>>The Dog wrote: As Philippe Starck's recently observed (Design Week,
>>14 March 1997) 'Architects? Aren't they the people who abandoned
>>duty in favour of status?
>
> Le Nic wrote: archies are not the only ones responsible for such mythmaking.
The tide turns: today's NYT reports on a flic where the architect-character
is a covert abuser of the child of his lover -- who in turn can't help doing
the
forbidden and testifying in court for the lover-abuser: the taboo of it turns
her on whereas lexual-prescriptive protective motherhood is numbly unsexual.
More: the semi-parentless kid's out-of-the-closet dad is trying to do the
biblical
thing for his perversely-bruised offspring, a numb-protectiveness which is
opposed by his current sweetboy, who, to taunt the quasi-dad, in turn has set
up a dangerous liaison with the brat's mom, displayed openly in the
ever-protection
of mission-position hearth-and-home nurbist court, where the twist-and-turn
nuclear-family-demystified-exploded drama unwinds "with unexpected
sensitivity" the reviewer alleges, feigning amazement to lure ticketbuyers.
That said, say also that Starck is ever surfing behind the wave, like Eisenman,
like the "arrogant architect" dog's pootery, which gassed into derriere garde a
generation or two back, and still only adopted by the empty noggers. Saul
Wurman's generation and the next following, say.
Now, what's the latest similar vein vain self-lacerative in Letting Info
Lie, Sleepy
Doggo?
What's this adoration of Maw Teresa Tufte? Now there's an abusive-abrasive
limnator-simulator who can stretch and slash a bastard-kid-canvas like no other
Last-Boomer information-doomed doodad-as-mom can.
>>14 March 1997) 'Architects? Aren't they the people who abandoned
>>duty in favour of status?
>
> Le Nic wrote: archies are not the only ones responsible for such mythmaking.
The tide turns: today's NYT reports on a flic where the architect-character
is a covert abuser of the child of his lover -- who in turn can't help doing
the
forbidden and testifying in court for the lover-abuser: the taboo of it turns
her on whereas lexual-prescriptive protective motherhood is numbly unsexual.
More: the semi-parentless kid's out-of-the-closet dad is trying to do the
biblical
thing for his perversely-bruised offspring, a numb-protectiveness which is
opposed by his current sweetboy, who, to taunt the quasi-dad, in turn has set
up a dangerous liaison with the brat's mom, displayed openly in the
ever-protection
of mission-position hearth-and-home nurbist court, where the twist-and-turn
nuclear-family-demystified-exploded drama unwinds "with unexpected
sensitivity" the reviewer alleges, feigning amazement to lure ticketbuyers.
That said, say also that Starck is ever surfing behind the wave, like Eisenman,
like the "arrogant architect" dog's pootery, which gassed into derriere garde a
generation or two back, and still only adopted by the empty noggers. Saul
Wurman's generation and the next following, say.
Now, what's the latest similar vein vain self-lacerative in Letting Info
Lie, Sleepy
Doggo?
What's this adoration of Maw Teresa Tufte? Now there's an abusive-abrasive
limnator-simulator who can stretch and slash a bastard-kid-canvas like no other
Last-Boomer information-doomed doodad-as-mom can.