bies that grossly exceed human proportion in addition to inflexible arrangement of rooms. I personally think that when one scrutinizes Peis creations, one should not consider them as merely buildings, but as aesthetically beautiful works of art. Another point of debate among critics, which can be essentially pared down to individual taste, is Peis prolific use of geometric shapes. Some feel that he has an inhumane devotion to geometry. Others have felt that he has diluted his art through service to the rich and powerful. . . . but there is no question that Pei has emerged as the most durably creative of American architects working at the grand scale (Wiseman 1990, p. 12). Since creativity is one of the main components of the avant-garde, it is evident that Peis work questions what architecture truly is. Upon examining Peis pyramidal entrance to the Louvre and design for the Bank of China building, some may argue that his work can be interpreted as fodder for controversy. Perhaps this was Peis intention. Many artists throughout the ages have shown that one of the greatest ways to achieve recognition is to stir up a controversy. However, it seems unlikely that Peis plans for his future designs were greatly affected by public reaction to his completed structures. As one of the foremost and successful architectural geniuses of the Twentieth Century, I.M. Pei has pushed the envelope of what architecture is: a uniquely personal vision of art physically manifested in a building. ...
