The challenge for Mr. Obama is to appeal to as broad a cross-section of American voters as possible. And as much as it might disappoint those of us who are fans of progressive modern design, the vast majority of Americans find the 'crumpled tin foil and 2-by-4' aesthetic of Gehry and the 'aggressive angularity' of much of Libeskind's work, to use Mr. Rybczynski's examples, to be too abstract, discordant and incomprehensible to be appealing.

As Mr. Rybczynski surely knows, public taste in architecture evolves very slowly and Obama would have risked putting-off much of his base by dabbling in more adventurous architectural forms.

While a more adventurous set might have appealed to those of us in the 'industry' who are fans of modern design, myself included, it would not have served the political purposes of the convention and the Democratic party - getting a Democrat elected and ending the Republican reign of incompetence and terror that would surely continue under McCain.

"included, it would not have served the political purposes of the convention and the Democratic party"

exactly - the backdrop was regal but not pompous, strong but not overbearing, noticeable but not distracting

My issue was wide distance views of it made it seem unbalanced and misplaced in the context of the venue. By holding the speech in a stadium he had to project up and out nearly 360 degrees so they constructed a set that cut off the seating behind him? Also, if you look at aerial views the column theme doesn't relate to the Invesco's design in the slightest. I keep thinking it looked like a presidential diorama.

It lacked truth and seemed forced. Sort of like when the Pope gives mass in a Latin American soccer stadium where the government has erected a scaffolding sanctuary. The venue is designed with line of sight to the center of the playing field. Any presentation should come from there without obstructions or else you've picked the wrong building.

To me (and family members who were watching with me) it was obvious that the set was designed to be evocative of the Oval Office. The columned porticoes were not at center stage and did not grab the eye; what actually functioned as backdrop was the curved row of floor-length windows (or doors) and the round rug with a circle of stars on it, plus the American flags.

Check it out: <link>

I thought of the Oval Office too.

I thought the set that was built for the Messiah's coronation fit Him perfectly. It was arrogant, pompous, over done and all for show with a sleek attractive exterior but no internal no substance. And like Obama's policy positions nobody can really tell exactlly what it is supposed to represent.

Denver Civic Center

Denver Civic Center

Denver Civic Center

Down to the Dorics and Iononians and Olympiade- even that little doorway in the back.

All you have to do is go downtown and see for yourself.

Denver Civic Center-

Wow. What you don't know about set design and venue design could fill a book that I've already participated in authoring (Wiley). The sightlines for Invesco are, in fact, arranged so as to include the benches at the sidelines, NOT the center of the field. No doubt, this was staged for the largest "3/4 round" audience and the open gaps between the windowed columns were such that folks sitting in the first 1/3 of the rows could see the candidate through the porticos. The windows were specifically illuminated with color that would harmonize with Obama's skin tones as the task of lighting blacks and whites together can be challenging...they cleverly sought to blend setting and lighting to accommodate this very reality. There's not an arena show that provides full sightlines, unobstructed in a venue of this size without reliance on IMAG (image magnification) screens and these anchor elements of the set served 3/4 of the audience while the Diamondvision was there for folks seated behind the setting. All in all, a relatively good and quick setup event, considering. Shame on all of the idiots looking for deeper meaning where there was precious little to be found.