> Earlier today, Bob King wrote:
> >Interesting to me that strip malls, the Las Vegas strip, and Los Angeles
> >tend to be thought of as canonical or primary texts of pomo! Maybe in
> >part because _Time_ magazine somehow figured out that postmodernism was a
> >new style of architecture!
> um, perhaps Vegas gets singled out because of *Learning From Las Vegas*
> by Venturi, Scott Brown, and Izenour. It started in 1968 as an essay
> called "A Significance for A&P Parking Lots, or Learning from Las Vegas,"
> and was expanded into a book in 1972. It was one of the first studies to
> advance the concept of postmodernism as both architectural practice and
> as critical tool for understanding cultural/critical implications of
> urban sprawl.
Um. . Okay, so are you agreeing that Las Vegas is a primary text? Maybe
this is where the young intern at _Time_ magazine got his storyline. I
don't know! :)
My general point was about how confusing it can be to conceive of pomo as
an esthetic rather than an epistemology -- and I'm trying to say that I
think our understanding of pomo got started on the wrong foot (in an
esthetic field -- architecture and architecture criticism). This citation
sounds interesting, and could be a real valuable source for anyone wanting
to trace how the idea of pomo got popularized in a particular way, for
particular reasons. . Thanks!