<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" 
  xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
  xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
  xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/"
  xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#">

<channel>
<title>Design Writing: Vital Field or Museum Piece? : Responses</title>
<description>Design Observer ::Â Join the Discussion</description>
<link>http://observatory.designobserver.com/feature/design-writing-vital-field-or-museum-piece/22678/</link>
<dc:language>en-us</dc:language>
<dc:creator>Design Observer Group</dc:creator>
<dc:date>2010-11-15T15:29:02-05:00</dc:date>
<copyright>http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/1.0</copyright>




<item>
	<title><![CDATA[Responding to "Design Writing: Vital Field or Museum Piece?"]]></title>
	<description><![CDATA[I am very skeptical about the thesis that architectural criticism is dead.  The media has just changed. âThe Media is the Message,â is an apt phrase (coined by Marshal McLuhan) that applies to blogs, Facebook, email, etc.  The print world is no longer based primarily on ink and paper, and as a result the previously familiar methods of critique have become outmoded.  Frankly, as an architect, I am not disappointed because many of the architectural critics foisted on the public by the mega-publishers lacked relevance on so many different levels. The new media will allow more voices to be heard.]]></description>
	<author>Dale Ellickson, FAIA</author>
	<link>http://observatory.designobserver.com/feature/design-writing-vital-field-or-museum-piece/22678/#comments</link>
	<dc:date>2010-11-15T15:29:02-05:00</dc:date>
</item>



</channel>
</rss>

	


