The first Article I did was by Herbert Muschamp, which as entitled "Changing of the Avant-Garde: Visionary Architectural Drawings From the Howard Gilman Collection''. Muschamp writes this piece to state that Contemporary architecture is again gaining the interest of the people, yet institutions, such as the Museum of Modern Art, are unwilling to support them. On the other hand, Muschamp states that he does have respect for all of the conceptual projects of the 60's and 70's that were on display. He mentioned a great deal of architects that I've already learned about in class, such as Bucky Fuller, creator of the Dymaxion House and Geodesic Dome, as well as some that are just being revealed to me, such as Cedric Price, who envisioned the Fun Palace, a place that had built in cranes that enabled floors and walls to be changed like "tinker toys" as he puts it. After giving these architects his due, he relates that their work, although great, just keeps on appearing on display while present architects" works are being blocked off. In his conclusion, he states that "Modern is on hiatus", while architecture is not, meaning that the museum needs to be more supportive of newer works. .
I feel that Herbert Muschamp is a good critic and made a good point in this article. I mean, if I ever become an influential architect, I"d hope that institutions such as museums would help me strive. I say this, because without recognition from these institutions, it is hard to find a place in the spotlight, therefore my work would be forgotten by most. Anyway, I really feel that Herbert Muschamp has very influential work, and should be read because of his respect for the old and the new.
The second piece that I wrote about was entitled "More Perfect Union of Function and Form", written by Witold Rybzinski, who not only writes for the New York Times, but also teaches at University of Pennsylvania. In this piece he critiques the National Constitution Center, which lies in the Town of Philadelphia.