"Political meanings attributed to aesthetic form tend to be overdetermined by rhetoric. It used to suffice for Peter Eisenman to say that a building was deconstructing the entire social order for it to be considered revolutionary, whether or not it had any political consequences. Today's star-chitects tend to be much more frank about the exchange of glamorous conceits for free publicity. Rem Koolhaas doesn't even pretend that his work has any other function than marketing; his rhetoric has the advantage of hinting at radicalism while embracing consumption. So it's that much more exciting when a young architect attaches a political manifesto to a design."
Thanks to Julie