Posted by  Paul Malo on June 07, 2002 at 04:50:21:

In Reply to:  Re: Critique of the Critique posted by Kevin Matthews on June 07, 2002 at 00:46:56:

Kevin, you note that:

"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."

But what argument is presented that Postmodernism is flawed? That's mere assertion. True, critics make these assertions all the time, and perhaps that's why architectural criticism has so little relevance these days. The actual argument presented is merely that the building is flawed, not that the whole movement was flawed.

No one is defending this building. As two of us have recalled, it was not destined to be a quality building from the outset. Who's to blame is no concern of ours, although it may be so for the people of Portland.

Just don't blame it on Postmodernism, and don't convey guilt by association by implying that all architects who were not loyal to the modernist orthodoxy were perpetrators of such sleazy practice as evidenced by this single example.

You say that:

"Use of an illustrative example is a perfectly sound way to make a point."

Yes, an example is a way of making a point, but is the journalist's point valid? The single example comprises the entire argument that Postmodernism was flawed. Is the example sufficient evidence to substantiate the assertion?

Responses:

Post a Response -