Wikipedia's art and architecture articles drive me mad sometimes. They can be over-philosophical and utilize deep concepts that non-art majors can hardly decipher.
For instance, I like reading about architecture and I wonder what the next great architectural style will be. According to Wikipedia, Neomodern (T-H-L-K-D) architecture is the newest form of architecture we are seeing now or will see in the near-future. But the article tells me nothing except that it is "a new simplicity" or a return to modernism. I never thought modernism left, to be honest. I read the neomodern manifestos and links on the article, but they do not tell me anything either. The interview with Guy Denning tells me nothing about Neomodernism (T-H-L-K-D) or its influence on architecture. I mean, he sounds like a typical artist who hates the current art world and thinks all the other artists are greedy corporate sell-outs and that his "Defastenism/Remodernism/Neomodernsim/Stuckism" art is the one true art.
I realize this may seem to be an "Annexable" topic, yet it is a symptom of many art and architecture articles (I do like Deconstructivism (T-H-L-K-D) and it's unfortunate Joopercoopers (T-C-L-K-R-D)
has flown the coop.). I just wish these articles were more readable to those of us outside of the art and architecture field.