<?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>The Anti-Monograph: a new book on the work of Studio Gang : Responses</title>
<description>Design Observer ::Â Join the Discussion</description>
<link>http://places.designobserver.com/feature/the-anti-monograph/26408/</link>
<dc:language>en-us</dc:language>
<dc:creator>Design Observer Group</dc:creator>
<dc:date>2011-04-25T11:41:40-05:00</dc:date>
<copyright>http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/1.0</copyright>




<item>
	<title><![CDATA[Responding to "The Anti-Monograph: a new book on the work of Studio Gang"]]></title>
	<description><![CDATA[there's one major thing wrong with this monograph- the work doesn't deserve one.  forget about the design of it- that's also a throwaway amateurish effort.  as for content and theory- leave that to grad school thesis writers.<br />
<br />
if only architects could be like peter zumthor saying NO to monographs, where even the reprinting of his scrumptious Works was blocked- because to experience the building, you have to go there.  ]]></description>
	<author>peter wong</author>
	<link>http://places.designobserver.com/feature/the-anti-monograph/26408/#comments</link>
	<dc:date>2011-04-25T11:41:40-05:00</dc:date>
</item>
<item>
	<title><![CDATA[Responding to "The Anti-Monograph: a new book on the work of Studio Gang"]]></title>
	<description><![CDATA[Oh brother, who can possibly stand the straw men Lange sets up in this review....tons of monographs on my shelves, few with glamour shots....A quick perusal of contemporary monographs would reveal a diversity of approaches, despite what Lamster says, since architects and their designers an editors have been tinkering with the format for years now, and some of the most interesting books are precisely the ones that took on some different (editorial for visual)form...., Gang and Azen are hardly the first (hmm, J.A. Miller and Diller Scofidio? Morphosis and Wild? Koolhaas and Mau?) How much more interesting a review of the Gang monograph might have been light of the variety of these actual monographs instead of comparing it to a banal clichÃ© of a book that begins to sound imaginary....What, no white paper in Ms. Gang's book? Is this really the first "type only" monograph cover? (No: in fact, isn't the Meier type only? Oh, because the Gang book features "broken up" type, it's more about process than Meier & Vignelli's un-molested Bodoni? Really?) And what was so wrong about the "old school" Meier monograph in it's time? Nothing, you say - just the mediocre followers? We are supposed to care about them? Can't DO be more "critical" in an interesting way, than this? ]]></description>
	<author>plakaboy@yahoo.com</author>
	<link>http://places.designobserver.com/feature/the-anti-monograph/26408/#comments</link>
	<dc:date>2011-04-24T20:58:44-05:00</dc:date>
</item>



</channel>
</rss>

	


