Senior Editor Quilian Riano posed in the discussion section a very important issue concerning the wikipedia entries revolving about the subject of architecture. The question I have about this issue is why haven't the institutional keepers of the faith not already revised these thin texts for the emergent web-based participants around the world?
2 Comments
I think this speaks to the larger issue: why is architecture so poorly defined to the general public in general? Unlike literature, music, the arts, sciences, history and even philosophy, architecture--much less architectural theory--is almost universally absent from American education except in collegiate architecture schools and some related fields. Architecture is poorly understood by those outside the architecture community, and great misconceptions abound. It is in the best interest of both the architecture community and the public for this to be remedied: so that the architecture community can better present itself, and so the public can be understand the intentions and processes of the architecture community, and so the two form a more symbiotic relationshop and are no longer so distinct.
perhaps a new generation of architects, designers, architectural historians and theorists, and other 'professionals' will heed this call and unshackle themselves from insular academic hegemonic lovefests and understand the power of social networking systems as tools for fostering a culture literate about our world of stuff, on all scales.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.