Peer review of paper number 113
1. Please do not change somebody else's review. 2. Please put your name at the end of your review.
Enter plain text and/or HTML tags. <div><font face="Arial" size="2">Sorkin and Baudrillard I found not always easy to read and understand, particularly in relation to Apartheid museum. The interpretation/reading of the Museum reads better when theory is integrated and not presented as blocks of abstract paragraphs which are difficult to connect to the museum.</font></div><div> </div><div><font face="Arial" size="2">Also find the English hard to follow as if theory and its abstractions deform communication and make it distant and inaccessible. Writer succeeds in showing how unreal and untrue the museum is by the predominance of often hard to follow theory- was that the intention? I think not. Theory also displaces the reading of the museum. The odd, heavy-handed English does not help much either.</font></div><div> </div><div><font face="Arial" size="2">The theory probably needs to be taken possession of, digested and connected more closely to perceptions and interpretations of elements of the museum.As it reads, mainly Sorkin that is, the writer is drowned by what he (Sorkin) says of other urban spaces. There are of course more lucid moments when the museum is discussed but on the whole the piece is overwhelmed by theory based on somewhere else and probably can be used to read the museum but it needs to be written so that this happens. For me it does not work as presented and needs to be rethought and rewritten.</font></div><div><font face="Arial" size="2">Regards</font></div><div><font face="Arial" size="2">Devi</font></div>
Password:         [Exit without saving]