I wanted to like something about this, if for no other reason than the title (which is excellent). The writing is good but I think the author gives too much cre

I wanted to like something about this, if for no other reason than the title (which is excellent). The writing is good but I think the author gives too much credit to Gins and couches the whole thing to sound like "maybe she knew something that we don't" and leaves any substantive criticism to the reader. As someone wholly unfamiliar with avant-garde architecture each of the pictured examples looks garish or camp in the extreme, like a 1960's television set. This can be put down to my inexpert eye but for the fact that the architect offers the following: What about consciousness at the cellular level, or at the level of the entire population? Might those types of awareness affect a person’s ability to live forever? The need to target different “scales of action,” as Gins called them, was reinforced in her dreams. And the author supplies: I didn’t understand how Gins could have thought that following these instructions might lead to immortality. But I also couldn’t believe, based on all I knew of her, that she was anything less than serious about the intent of her work. To be blunt, the whole article read like a weakly supportive retrospective on some kind of metaphysical woo-woo. The author is clearly talented, but the subject matter was way outside of my wheelhouse and left me annoyed.