Sometimes I google “Lars Spuybroek + abstraction” to see if perhaps someone shares my comment on his interpretation of “modern abstract art”.
It turns out that virtually every review of his latest book “the sympathy of things” confines itself to Spuybroek’s interpretation and promotion of  ideas that were developed in the 19th century by the English philosopher John Ruskin. These ideas are focussed on the necessity of physical identification of the artist with the object of his work, in order to create living and lasting beauty. Very inspiring ideas actually, and certainly deserving the attention and interest of artists working with the digital tools of our time, like the architect Lars Spuybroek. So no wonder that reviewers tend to focus on this historical aspect of his book. 
But isn’t it the first duty of criticism to look for the new, personal and original ideas of the author himself ? And isn’t it self-evident that the notion “modern abstract art” is a first point of interest and curiosity for professor Spuybroek’s ambitious young university-students in Atlanta USA? So how the heck is it possible that only one Dutch morning paper, and not a single English academic magazine, paid attention to the fact that Spuybroek calls abstract art “a horrible dogma”?