REVIEW: Turkusic’ E. (2011) ‘Neo Vernacular Architecture: Contribution to the Research on Revival of Vernacular Heritage Through Modern Architectural Design’ Conference Paper, University of Sarajevo.
REVIEW:
Turkusic’ E. (2011) ‘Neo Vernacular Architecture: Contribution to the Research on Revival of Vernacular Heritage Through Modern Architectural Design’ Conference Paper, University of Sarajevo.
This article completley ignores some of the fundamental aspects of what vernacular actually relates to. As such, Turkusic appears to have written a gloating in is own opinion driven language. I hasten to add that perhaps some of the text was lost in the translation, yet, from poor use of sentence structure, to the confused use of terminology, much of what was written had no substantiating documentation or referencing.
On that point, it is evident that the writer has a distinct opinion of vernacular that isn’t substantiated correctly, alternate definitions or ideas were avoided, there is, in one part, the claim “Hassan Fathy in Egypt is the best.” Which, be it as it may still needs some formal elaboration. One tends to have the thought that this is a first or second year school of architecture essay; perhaps the subject matter is too vast, and as such; misunderstood by the author to properly elucidate their meaning.
As a means to justify the case studies, these conference proceedings are poor in their explanation of the doctrine or understanding in the architectural appraisal. Leaving the case studies and the reader poorly done by. Whilst the author appears charming in their stylistic treatment of the subject matter, that doesn’t account for the vast gaping hole of knowledge evident.
This doesn’t mean that some of the information isn’t accurate, or, indeed that it isn’t there, but it is wholly misrepresented, and generally falls short of adequate support.
As a general rule: if a claim is made, there must be at least one quote to back up the argument.
That’s where the proceedings are interesting, as; the claims made are substantiated in much literature but this literature is non existent within the article. As such, the opinion piece is undermined.
Turkusic’ E. (2011) ‘Neo Vernacular Architecture: Contribution to the Research on Revival of Vernacular Heritage Through Modern Architectural Design’ Conference Paper, University of Sarajevo.
This article completley ignores some of the fundamental aspects of what vernacular actually relates to. As such, Turkusic appears to have written a gloating in is own opinion driven language. I hasten to add that perhaps some of the text was lost in the translation, yet, from poor use of sentence structure, to the confused use of terminology, much of what was written had no substantiating documentation or referencing.
On that point, it is evident that the writer has a distinct opinion of vernacular that isn’t substantiated correctly, alternate definitions or ideas were avoided, there is, in one part, the claim “Hassan Fathy in Egypt is the best.” Which, be it as it may still needs some formal elaboration. One tends to have the thought that this is a first or second year school of architecture essay; perhaps the subject matter is too vast, and as such; misunderstood by the author to properly elucidate their meaning.
As a means to justify the case studies, these conference proceedings are poor in their explanation of the doctrine or understanding in the architectural appraisal. Leaving the case studies and the reader poorly done by. Whilst the author appears charming in their stylistic treatment of the subject matter, that doesn’t account for the vast gaping hole of knowledge evident.
This doesn’t mean that some of the information isn’t accurate, or, indeed that it isn’t there, but it is wholly misrepresented, and generally falls short of adequate support.
As a general rule: if a claim is made, there must be at least one quote to back up the argument.
That’s where the proceedings are interesting, as; the claims made are substantiated in much literature but this literature is non existent within the article. As such, the opinion piece is undermined.
Review by: Thomas J. Barker, Arch.Angle.Studios
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Discover More:
ObulniOpostko Clayton Jones https://wakelet.com/wake/e6p0fZOryOJnnkdOKMyva
ReplyDeleteadabsmoulsub