Metapolis Dictionary of Advanced Architecture: City, Technology and Society in the Information Age

Rating:
Summary: Half inspiring, half infuriating
Review: This book has an interesting thrust behind it; to understand current ideas of urbanism and architecture theory, don't produce a dictionary with a timeless quality. Instead, construct an index committed to the moment, that is destined to begin its obsolescence the second it's printed. It's best quality is its cluttered, jumbled design which floods you with imagery and conceptual points of departure.

Sadly, it seems that 2/3rds of architecture education is deliberate obfuscation; those people muddying their waters so as to appear deep. Like all theory, this operates from a "We're so clever, that what we're saying can't be summarized." viewpoint that complicates simple ideas. If you're not into theoretical hair-splitting you're in for a rough time. For complete annoyance you could look up these idiotic entries: 'benidorm' or 'mmm.' The books worst quality is it's fetishing of neologism.

One-line entries for epic concepts that don't even offer fundamentals are so broad as to be useless. Look up 'colours!' Say... that was useless. No this isn't the book I'd turn to for a deep understanding of color but why include an entry at all?

At it's worst this is a coy, academic in-joke that worships jargon, in an attempt to influence the lexicon.('delynneate...' get it? greg lynn...) At it's best it's an exhilarating look at ideas that may have a shelf-life of decades or a few months, relievedly free of blob worshipping.

Rating:
Summary: Half inspiring, half infuriating
Review: This book has an interesting thrust behind it; to understand current ideas of urbanism and architecture theory, don't produce a timeless resource; instead, construct an index committed to the moment, that is destined to begin its obsolescence the second it's printed. It's best quality is its cluttered, jumbled design which floods you with imagery and conceptual points of departure.

Sadly, it seems that 2/3rds of architecture education is deliberate obfuscation; people muddying their waters so as to appear deep. Like much of the worst theory, this operates from a "We're so clever, that what we're saying can't be summarized." viewpoint that complicates simple ideas. If you're not into theoretical hair-splitting you're in for a rough time.

The books worst quality is it's fetishing of neologism. For complete annoyance you could look up these idiotic entries: 'benidorm' or 'mmm.' Other one-line entries for epic concepts that don't even offer fundamentals, are so broad as to be useless; look up 'colours!' (Say... that was useless!). No this isn't the book I'd turn to for a deep understanding of color but why include an entry at all?

At it's worst this is a coy, academic in-joke that worships jargon, in an attempt to influence the lexicon. ('delynneate,' get it? Greg Lynn...). At it's best it's an exhilarating look at ideas that may have a shelf-life of decades or a few months, relievedly free of blob worshipping.