Why does no one pay attention to the "fashionable nonsense" of architectural criticism?

There is a vibrant ongoing debate about modern intellectuals who are good at stringing words together to sound impressive but who really have little to say. This article on Postmodernism Disrobed is just one among many in that genre. (Link via Butterflies and Wheels.) Why, however, as a general rule, do these worthy debunkers pay no attention to architectural theorists such as Koolhaas, Muschamp etc etc ad infinitum? Surely there is bunk there in bushels. No doubt they are kept busy enough by literary theorists and so forth. But, as an entirely separate inquiry, why no attention paid to people who spoof the built environment? Are we too much in our heads? With insufficient sense of the body? Only the most tenyous and remote connections to the buildings around us? I think it has something to do with that.

Comments

[Nikos Salingaros]

David;

It just so happens that I have just published a trenchant dismantling of deconstructivism, with a particular emphasis on the architectural scene. It does address the important role of the architectural critic, though not by mentioning particular names. Please see "The Derrida Virus" in TELOS, a distinguished Philosophy Journal -- the latest issue.

[Brian Miller]

Did you see over on the Daily Dose yet another paen to that ridiculous assemblage of bizarre objects in space (or parking lots) built by some Mexican billionaire in northern Mexico? Absolutely ridiculous.

[David Sucher]

I agree, Brian, the project shown at A Daily Dose of Architecture does seem a bit preposterous.

Nikos, is the article avilable on-line?