I can't defend the 'vandal,' so to speak, but this article has problems.  The first line refers to neo-futurism as a 21st century movement, and yet the gallery has many structures that were done during the 20th.  The St. Louis Gateway Arch, for instance, is OLD.  I was brought here by the article of Buckminster Fuller, and he died in 1983.  If you can't tell us what century something is from, this does create a credibility problem.  Also, and this is just personal musing, the nomenclature is problematic and recursive.  How many times are we going to reinvent futurism?  If I built a building today and designed it to look as futuristic as possible, would that be neo-neo-futurism?