SUMMARIES
Critiquing this article, the article is not convincing and it does not reach a convincing solution. The explanation that the author gives does not relate to the thesis of this paper. The author tries to relate art and architecture with history of technology, materials and the symbolic the fields that the author in this context tires to relate are very diverse and broad and so they cannot be easily constricted into one whole subject of architecture. The other reason why the science is not convincing is due to the fact that when the art woks alone are not enough to give a visual imagery of the historical truths. However, I also tend to agree with the writer when it comes to the argument made in form of a question whether the architectural history is an endless repertory of crises, failures, utopias and betrayals.
The importance of the theoretical topic of this text for the architectural analysis and interpretation is as follosws.it gives a vivid concept that helps the readers an ample to easily learn the art of interpretation and how to relate history from the architecture that has been preserved to the current generation of from the general observations of the existing forms of architecture. In addition to the above discussions, this text is indeed very informative when it comes to the gaining knowledge related to architecture. It gives out an analytical view on how to relate the architecture and the historical attachments of the architectural structures.
