Patrick quizzically observes:
actually don't see incoming mail, except your tests...
probably everybody 's still under the shock of some disgrace.
Which ?
Steve replies:
Here's a bit of a shock I want to share. I've read HOW ARCHITECTURE GOT ITS
HUMP over the last Wednesday to Wednesday week, and in chapter 5, the last
chapter, I was shocked to read on page 152:
"Are Gehry and Rauschenburg's binoculars in Los Angeles the upturned result
of sculpture freed from a toothpaste image of softness? Just what have these
installations got to do with architecture's own program?"
I'm thinking, what a shocking mistake, and what a disgrace for both the
author, Roger Connah, and the editor at MIT Press. The binoculars are not
Rauschenberg's, and I won't even bother to write the name of the binocular's
correct artistic father. Isn't such a printed mistake from the most
respected architectural editor of books something to be concerned about? Is
it actually true that no one really reads these kind of architecture theory
category books that for the most part are just words with very few images?
For a moment there, I was just in the mood to write HOW ARCHITECTURE GOT ITS
LACUNAE, and every line in the book was going to be a big, fat, fucking
mistake! Oh, I'm suddenly so overwhelmed.
If I'm not mistaken, there are some recently new book and chapter beginnings
at www.quondam.com.
actually don't see incoming mail, except your tests...
probably everybody 's still under the shock of some disgrace.
Which ?
Steve replies:
Here's a bit of a shock I want to share. I've read HOW ARCHITECTURE GOT ITS
HUMP over the last Wednesday to Wednesday week, and in chapter 5, the last
chapter, I was shocked to read on page 152:
"Are Gehry and Rauschenburg's binoculars in Los Angeles the upturned result
of sculpture freed from a toothpaste image of softness? Just what have these
installations got to do with architecture's own program?"
I'm thinking, what a shocking mistake, and what a disgrace for both the
author, Roger Connah, and the editor at MIT Press. The binoculars are not
Rauschenberg's, and I won't even bother to write the name of the binocular's
correct artistic father. Isn't such a printed mistake from the most
respected architectural editor of books something to be concerned about? Is
it actually true that no one really reads these kind of architecture theory
category books that for the most part are just words with very few images?
For a moment there, I was just in the mood to write HOW ARCHITECTURE GOT ITS
LACUNAE, and every line in the book was going to be a big, fat, fucking
mistake! Oh, I'm suddenly so overwhelmed.
If I'm not mistaken, there are some recently new book and chapter beginnings
at www.quondam.com.