Talk:From Bauhaus to Our House

POV tag

The "Critical response" section falls far short of compliance with Wikipedia:Neutrality. It very obviously reflects an assumption that pro-modernists are intellectually and culturally superior, and that their opponents are ignorant people who do not deserve respect. Beorhtric (talk) 19:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I utterly fail to see any statement even possibly implying such assumptions. Care to be more precise? Circeus (talk) 19:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

It is in almost every line:

• Why is the viewpoint of the architectural establishment given priority? Of course they were hostile. Would you expect a positive response to a book attacking organised crime from the Mafia? This approach reflects the arrogance of the modernist establishment, in which outsiders are not considered fit to participate in a dialogue about architecture (and everything possible is done to ensure that no-one who does not support the establishment line can have a career in architecture). Scorn and intimidation are used as substitutes for reasoned debate, and we get buildings that most people hate. Beorhtric (talk) 20:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
• Hilton refuted "some" of Wolfe's points? Why only emphasise the disagreements? Why imply that Wolfe's style (which has made him one of the most praised journalists alive?) invalidates his arguments?
• Why is it relevant that architecture was moving away from modernism to post-modernism? Wolfe was attacking modernism. This paragraph is an attempt to move the discussion away from the actual subject of the book.
• Why choose patronising phrasing like "conceded that the book was, at the least, well-written". Wolfe is a famous prose stylist, so this is hardly a surprise. (I wonder how well written pro-modernist texts may be, and whether modernists would consider poor prose in a modernist text a damning criticism of modernist architecture?)
• Why use the grudging word "conceded" in relation to concessions to Wolfe, when there is nothing grudging about the language in which attacks on him are reported.

Beorhtric (talk) 20:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I will work on improving the wording in this section. I cited my sources pretty extensively in the critical response section -- it hope it's clear that these are the critics opinions, not my own. One of my major sources is "The Critical Response to Tom Wolfe" which is a compendium written by a literature scholar (not architecture) which summarizes the tone of the critical response. I feel strongly that we must work from reliable published sources, and so if you know of different critical opinions, please add them here so we can work them into the article. --JayHenry (talk) 17:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I too think the section as it stands serves mainly as a vehicle by which the architectural establishment can knock wolfe's arguments, and therefore agree with Beorhtric. Wikipedia is not a battleground, and "criticism" sections should be avoided because they tend to be inherently POV and/or a troll magnet. I'll have a think about rewriting the article, but a good start could be to include some positive responses as well, particularly anything from outside the architecture/art establishment (ie the people Wolfe was principally talking about).--Yeti Hunter (talk) 10:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

That's actually not a "criticism" section, but a section for "critical response" meaning -- how did critics respond to the work. This has become a bit muddled in modern English, but a section on "critical response" is not the same as a section for negative response. Critical responses can be both positive and negative. In this case, it is the opinion of the scholars whose work I summarized as per WP:NPOV and WP:RS, that the critics who reacted to Wolfe had a largely negative opinion. That is the NPOV in this particular incidence. It's an incredible mistake to think that I, the author of this article, am critical of Wolfe. I wrote many of the articles on his books because I'm a tremendous fan. --JayHenry (talk) 03:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, but the critical responses cited are actually all criticisms, whereas it is clear from the number of sympathetic works citing or inspired by Wolfe that the response was not all negative. It seems to give undue weight to the opinion of the people Wolfe was criticising to begin with. I'll admit though that actual "reliable sources" reacting positively to Wolfe seem to be thin on the ground, at least through google. Perhaps the article (or section) would benefit from the attention of an art historian or journalist who might know where to find a range of responses.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 04:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

involution of professional architecture

Regardless of whether much of what Wolfe said was historically or technically correct, he was an early voice pointing out that buildings which win awards from architectural societies or publications are too often buildings which are hated by the actual people who have to live or work within them, and that some architects seem to have impressing other architects as a higher goal than serving the interests of the end-users of what they build. It would be nice if suitable connections with other articles could be made on this point. AnonMoos (talk) 12:23, 19 December 2013 (UTC)