As Wolfe's arguments mirrored those he made in
The Painted Word so was mirrored the critical response. The response to Wolfe's book from the architecture world was highly negative. Critics argued that, once again, Wolfe was writing on a topic he knew nothing about and had little insight to contribute to the conversation.
Time critic Robert Hughes wrote that Wolfe had added nothing to the discussion of modern architecture except "a kind of supercilious rancor and a free-floating hostility toward the intelligentsia". The architectural and urban critic
Michael Sorkin noted, "What Tom Wolfe doesn't know about modern architecture could fill a book. And so indeed it has, albeit a slim one."
Hilton Kramer writing in the
Saturday Review found Wolfe's writing hyperbolic and refuted some of Wolfe's points. Wolfe had claimed, for example, that a Modern Architecture exhibition at the
Museum of Modern Art had played a large role in subverting native culture; Kramer rebutted that the museum had displayed the art of
Charles Burchfield and
Edward Hopper before
Picasso and
Matisse and that the exhibition occurred in 1932 while the architecture itself remained uncommon for another 20 years. Some critics conceded that Wolfe was right that many people did not appreciate the buildings.
Blake Morrison, writing in the
Times Literary Supplement observed that perhaps some people felt such hostility to architecture because it is "a gallery we can't walk out of, a book we can't close, and art we can't even turn our backs on because it is there facing us on the other side of the street". Others noted that, regardless of whether Wolfe was right or wrong, architecture was already moving away from Modern architecture to
Postmodern architecture. Many of the complaints that Wolfe lodged against Modern architecture, particularly the austere boxiness of the buildings, were no longer a facet of postmodern architecture. Critics observed that the book was well written.
Paul Goldberger, the architecture critic for
The New York Times wrote, "Mr. Wolfe's agility continues to dazzle, more than fourteen years after his essays first began to appear in print. But dazzle is not history, or architectural criticism, or even social criticism, and it is certainly not an inquiry into the nature of the relationship between architecture and society." == References ==