I read the article on page 73 of the July Record. As you know, it's an argument between academics, which, the headline would suggest is about the end of theory. It is written in an arcane language that about nineteen people understand. This doesn't bother me, because I've spent a lifetime in architecture reading the horse hockey of Eisenman, Tafuri and a few others, so I got most of the references. When I was really into this stuff, trying to see if I could find something to help me generate exciting and "relevant" forms, back in the middle 80's....when I realized I had been on the right track ten years earlier when I stumbled onto ideas that were eventually labeled as Post Modern, but that they were only relevant for an instant, I even went to the trouble of doing research into French philosophy, just to see if I was missing something. In light of this article, I share with you some thoughts generated or regurgitated as I read the article.

A. Eisenman could always design nifty-looking buildings. The early houses had goofy program qualities that no client I ever met would appreciate, but the forms were unquestionably exciting. His large scale work, post-Robertson, is also incredibly appealing visually in photos and drawings, but so esoteric and expensive, that the lessons learned from studying it are of virtually no value to 99 1/2% of U.S. practitioners.