The above from Linda Mack's article in the Star Tribune, April 28. The "poopy dog parks for the wealthy" is priceless. But the crux of the issue Mack is really talking about is our reluctance to offer critique of our peer's work. Odd, considering we are trained in the environment of the design studio critique. She offers these fresh words about Phillip's unabashed approach, " And, unlike most of his Minnesota colleagues, he doesn't mince words -- even when he's discussing their work."
So, what happened when we got "professional" here in Minnesota? Why are we so reluctant to offer protest and criticism of our own, we are after all a very public and critical voice for the environment, aesthetics and community? Doesn't the public deserve a professions dialogue with itself?
Phillip is a regular contributor to Architecture Minnesota. Find his unique viewpoint in the magazine’s Speed Reading and Notebook departments. He is also principal in the architecture firm IOTA
Post-Identity Design: Brands, Politics, and Technological Instability - Federico Pérez Villoro is a New York–based artist and designer interested in the influence of networked technologies on human behavior, economics, and poli...
6 days ago