Quote:
Originally Posted by Rooted Arborial
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Consider the source.
I have no reason to question the author's ability at writing and knowledge of history, however
I am familiar enough with Mr. Lewis' writing that I have good reason to question his agenda/propaganda.
Anyone who would write articles which include celebrating/promoting such things as the painting skill of George W. Bush and the Museum of the Bible (which was built in
D.C. by huge amounts of Hobby Lobby money) is a writer who has proven himself to be worthy of a strong dose of skepticism by this reader.
|
Yes, similar to another recent 'review' not by a true architecture critic. It just repeats the Studio Gang propaganda (which, of course regarding the solar light and gain is total bullshit) with no independent analysis or real architectural critique whatsoever... usually, critiques incorporate how the building functions in plan as well... and usually in architectural critiques decisions related to material, color, and form are analyzed by how it relates to and was informed by the program and function...
I love how they note the blow-through was a mistake but herald it like it's some kind of remarkable aesthetic achievement...