<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Anguished Architect Alert</title>
	<atom:link href="http://lookingaround.blogs.time.com/2007/08/27/anguished_architect_alert/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://lookingaround.blogs.time.com/2007/08/27/anguished_architect_alert/</link>
	<description>Reflections on art and architecture by TIME critic Richard Lacayo.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 08 Dec 2009 15:49:09 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Eric Fredericksen</title>
		<link>http://lookingaround.blogs.time.com/2007/08/27/anguished_architect_alert/comment-page-1/#comment-104</link>
		<dc:creator>Eric Fredericksen</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 27 Aug 2007 23:05:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lookingaround.blogs.time.com/2007/08/27/anguished_architect_alert/#comment-104</guid>
		<description>That&#039;s probably exactly what he does mean, and if you look at his firm&#039;s approach to design and contrast it with Libeskind&#039;s (which is to contrast elaborate statistical and structural studies with poetic devices like symbolism, metaphor, and affect, and a complete disinterest in any of the traditional functional roles of architecture) the distinction he makes here would be much easier to comprehend. Instead, you judge here simply by juxtaposing images, which is no way to discuss architecture.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That's probably exactly what he does mean, and if you look at his firm's approach to design and contrast it with Libeskind's (which is to contrast elaborate statistical and structural studies with poetic devices like symbolism, metaphor, and affect, and a complete disinterest in any of the traditional functional roles of architecture) the distinction he makes here would be much easier to comprehend. Instead, you judge here simply by juxtaposing images, which is no way to discuss architecture.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
