Posted by Kevin Matthews on June 07, 2002 at 00:46:56:In Reply to: Critique of the Critique posted by Paul Malo on June 05, 2002 at 09:04:40:
It's great to see a vigorous discussion of this piece.
And in the process, let's try to keep logic logical.
In short, the critical flaw here is arguing from the particular to the general, supposing that whatever flaws may be evident in the example may be assigned to a larger category--in this instance, to "postmodernism," whatever they may be.
I do not actually find that critical flaw in the text of the article. The article says that, "...the building illustrates the movement's inadequacies..."
The author is not saying that because the Portland Building is seriously flawed, therefore Postmodernism is flawed. Rather, the author is saying Postmodernism is flawed, and the Portland Building provides an instructive example.
Use of an illustrative example is a perfectly sound way to make a point.
I wonder if the concern expressed about the article is really about its logic (which seems pretty good to me) or if it is more about the content, critical of Postmodernism (though only in part).
My own perspective is that while not all Postmodern buildings were bad, the Postmodern stylistic movement rose and fell without ever finding a sound basis, either functionally or intellectually.
The Portland Building design was presented by Graves in a competition. The client did not drive the architect to present such a dysfunctional and inhumane scheme. As suggested by the posting from David Church, some combination of the competition jury and the public client was culpable in selecting such an obviously inadequate design. But the fact that a gulible client didn't stop him does not relieve an architect of responsibility for his work.
|
ArchitectureWeek
Search
Buildings
Architects
Types
Places
Pix
Free 3D Models
Store
Library
|