So, basically:
Spiteful article comes out, decries lack of criticism, mentions me both negatively and positively (even compliments me for something I haven't written, although I suspect the writer was referring to this.).
People start responding, although it would seem that I'm not considered to be a part of this discussion.
I mean, I'd hate for this to be about my ego, but if what I write here is not criticism, then what the fuck am I actually doing, and why would I be mentioned at all?
3 comments:
Of course, it could just be because **** ** ** ******.
Peter Kelly is often a smart writer, so christ knows what he's doing writing something as tossed-off and incoherent as this. I guess Blueprint have obviously decided it's a clever idea to position themselves as the anti-internet non-establishment, which is hilarious given the back-slapping intricacy of the RCP/LM libertarian club that they're such a part of.
Don't feel under-appreciated, Doug!
I really enjoy reading your criticism here-- I especially appreciated the essay on Zaha from last year, linked above.
Its strange that Kelly is lamenting the lack of rigorous criticism of Significant Architects and Important New Buildings, when its only actually only places like E&V that provide strong indictments of contemporary architects.
Best Regards!
Post a Comment