The essay on “Learning from Las Vegas” addresses two prime audiences, the architects involved in designing and the public that includes artists, critics, and writers. The author’s tone throughout the essay is a mix of criticism and sarcasm. One can understand that the author has a competent background from his style of analyzing and criticizing the examples he cites.
The author introduces the essay with a tone that is very educational and analytical. He talks about how necessary it is for architects to learn from the existing landscape. “Architects are out of the habit of looking non judgmentally at the environment, because orthodox modern architecture is progressive.” One can assimilate from the author’s tone, the importance of looking at things in a different perspective from the traditional way. Consequently his tone gets informative when he uses examples of modernist architects and talks about how architects work through analogy , symbol and image. “We look backward at history and tradition to go forward; we can also look downward to go upward. And withholding judgment may be used as a tool to make later judgment more sensitive.” The tone of assertiveness is well supported by his statement about perversity in the learning process, while his very next statement gets preachy when he lays out the strategies of learning from everything.
“The morality of commercial advertising, gambling interest and the competitive interest is not an issue here, although, indeed, we believe it should be in the architect’s broader, synthetic tasks of which an analysis such as this is but one aspect.” One can interpret the articulateness in the tone of the author when he distinctly bifurcates what is required and what is not. Furthermore, Venturi authoritatively talks about how architects could uncover from the existing urbanism and take it into consideration the technicalities while designing new development for the city.
“During the last 40 years, theorists of Modern architecture have focused on space as the essential ingredient that separates architecture from painting , sculpture and literature.” We can understand the author’s comparative tone from his statement that draws instances from the past. Subsequently his tone becomes informative when he recounts the examples of Roman and Gothic architecture where the use of art was celebrated immensely. However Venturi’s tone becomes educational when he debates about the integration of arts in architecture and he formulates ...