If you take a look at photos from virtually any lecture, exhibition, or gallery event that is centered around design-oriented architects and architecture, whether theoretical or in practice, you will find that everyone looks essentially the same. Regardless of race, age, sex, being an observer or presenter they all look the same. Same style of clothes, same accoutrements, same facial expressions, same hair styles, same boredom, same monotony, same complete aversion to challenging the very field that is slowly raping them of individuality and true aspirational creativity.
No, I read all of it. I also have first hand experience in the sequence of events that takes place when one person offers their creative services “on the cheap.” It doesn’t matter how large or small that task may be, by agreeing to the low fee the service provider it validating the client’s mentality that such services are not worth what their true asking price is, and negotiating to ‘actual’ prices is nearly impossible. I am certainly not alone in this thinking, the AIGA and Graphic Artists Guild would think your post is very disappointing as well. Looking at a few of the comments on reposts of your original post would also reflect this.
Pico Iyer, in a pleasant Los Angeles Times article noted by Schmudde, defending his use of “…longer and longer sentences as a small protest against —and attempt to rescue any readers I might have from— the bombardment of the moment.”
Iyer chooses two sorts of reduced expression as examples: bullet points, which are the prose of the business world; and the “inhuman” ballot-box, where political expression occurs. It is amusing to note that many believe that it is in precisely these spaces —the professional and the political— that their identity resides, that the substance of their life resides. If not there, after all, where?