First of all, we will read the opinions between Michael Sorkin and Alan Colquhoun about the work

of Michael Graves. Sorkin has

a different opinion about Michael Graves comparing with Colquhoun. Michael Graves was an American architect part of The
New York Five and was an American architect and designer born on July the 9th in 1934 to Indianapolis in Indiana. Graves
focused on the early works of Le Corbusier, but this became less afterwards. He also used many classical details in a mannerism
way. Although the opinions differ greatly, they both talk passionate about the work of Michael Graves. Differences here is that
one is positive and the other is negative about Graves’ work.

Michael Graves was met with a storm of disapproval, despite the fact that the classical elements had been 'translated'. Because
of this there is a piece of text written about Michael Graves by Sorkin and Colquhoun. The opinions differ between them and
hereby it will be explained why this is the case and how they explain it.

Sorkin has an opinion about the work of Michael Graves in a criticism way expressed in clear words. The work of Michael Graves
was always about his own materiality. Sorkin is very negative about the work of Michael Graves and says that in many words and
explains why. The Whitney is an investigation of a boldly sculptural form. The words Sorkin uses to summarize the detailed
fragments about the building sounds almost passionate, but still very negative. He even asks in his text how it can be stopped
and how the building can be saved. In Sorkin’s opinion Graves did not put his heart in his work.

Colquhoun is very positive about Graves. This piece by Colquhoun is written with the aim to redeem the work of Michael
Graves. This is achieved by bring it into context and compare the work of Graves with other architects, for example Le Corbusier.
There is an architectural language of Michael Graves between what is real and what is virtual. He is telling how and what Graves
did with his work. How it looks like and tells at an enthusiastic way about his opinion of Graves’ work. He fully explains what he
sees in the work of Graves.

Therefore, the opinions between Sorkin and Colquhoun are very different. The way Sorkin talks about Graves is negative
comparing with Colquhoun. Colquhoun shows respect for Graves’ work and what he has done. When I compare the way that
Sorkin talks about Graves with Colquhoun. Colquhoun is translating Graves’ work as a mediation on architecture, but when I
read the part of Sorkin, he is almost angry. Saying that we have to destroy it to save it, and hands off. So, both approaches
exclude one and other.

Lucinda Ahrens
1485687