Yup, the students crits were interesting, espeically the five 5th year gallery projects.
The lecture was a brief review of his projects in, (I presume), some kind of chronological order. It was interesting if a little economical. In some ways his discriptions of the buildings exploded the myths and mystery that preside around his work, making them slightly less compelling. There were some parts of his theory that owed as much to post-rationalisation as to anything else.
[This message has been edited by doozer (edited 06 December 2001).]