terça-feira, 6 de setembro de 2005

Bla bla bla

É por estas e por outras que eu, quando for grande, quero ser o Mark Wigley:

(...) If architects have a unique form of speech, what is it for us to listen? How do we listen in architecture? This is the side of the conversation that is usually left out. For example, we speak of "talking on the phone" but never of "listening on the phone". If two people are talking, the question of listening does not come up. It is almost as if we think of listening as being private, what goes on in the head, and talking is what is public. In pointing to a conversation, we point to that which is visible, that which is public. And because listening is thought of as a private and passive activity rather than a public one, we have not developed the science of listening. We have not thought about the nuances of how to listen. In our field, we have not asked, what is to listen to an architect, or to listen to a building? Architects are so busy talking that they forget to listen. They act as if they do not have time to listen to each other or to their clients. In factm listening to our client is a polemical position. For achitects to declare they are very interested in the unique interests of their clients is already taking a particular position, like Neutra, presenting himself as a especially gifted listener and having himself photographed listening to his clients, blurring the role od the architect and the role of the shrink, the shrink being the paradigm of the listener. Most architects simply pretend they are not listening because it is a sign of strength not to listen, to be the one who talks. As architects get more and more successful, they stop going to conferences that they are not speaking at and spend less and less time listening to the other speakers. They stop listening, even to their own voices, perhaps. (...)

Mark Wigley, «The Art of Listening to Architecture», Eisenman Krier / Two Ideologies