Awkward, bizarre, absurd, faulty, irregular, ridiculous, strange, peculiar, foolish, eccentric, against nature, out of tune, abusive and shocking are the words Marc-Antoine Laugier uses in his ‘Essay on Architecture’ (1753) to characterize everything that deviates from his super-rational model of the rustic hut. He rigorously rejects any aberration, any mutation, any evolution, any development, any liberties - but of course the architects still 'have the freedom to act as they always have been used to do’, as he sulkily concludes. This statement chokes off any possibility of a discourse. This is his opinion, take it or leave it - he doesn’t care. This is why i will not even bother to bring up a counter-argument. What i find though, is that his attitude is a disease from which many contemporary critics suffer. How is it possible to have a fruitful discourse if both, critics and architects, are autistic, aggressive, impulsive, stubborn, sulky and intolerant?