tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27784092.post2409323360029553850..comments2008-05-06T14:31:49.856-04:00enriquehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04577885003206195489noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27784092.post-24609335627128940972008-05-06T14:31:00.000-04:002008-05-06T14:31:00.000-04:00Hey Fred ... I did see Aranda/Lasch's work at MoMA. I can't say that they were as weirdly offsetting as Lovecraft's prose. <BR/><BR/>And thanks for the note ... I've been wanting to write about Lovecraft for a long time. His work is *SO* obsessed with architecture and landscape. For this post, however, I wanted to let others "speak", which why I found both Banville's and Houellebecq's words captivating.<BR/><BR/>I still think there is room for using literature in the service of architecture criticism, but much needs to be said on how to do this. I found Adam's post on the topic (hyperlinked in the text) really compelling and useful. Still, the trick is, how do we "instrumentalize" literature for the services of studying architecture and urbanism. Methinks it is perhaps a futile question, and yet I found Houellebecq's approach really, really interesting and (strangely) useful).enriquehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04577885003206195489noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27784092.post-48983862176838408572008-05-05T22:42:00.000-04:002008-05-05T22:42:00.000-04:00Enrique, I'm amazed you made it through an entire breakdown of Lovecraft and architecture without using the word 'cyclopean'. Well done.<BR/><BR/>You've seen Aranda/Lasch's 'Rules of Six' at Design and the Elastic Mind? The non-euclidean _wrongness_ of it (in the best way) made me think of Lovecraft. Inhuman geometries, 'vast, cool and indifferent'.sevensixfivehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03373938159184406283noreply@blogger.com