Make way for Christmas

Foto: F Cardigos.

I remember an old chronicle of Vasco Pulido Valente, in Público, which divided the world of education for children between what was true and the rest. This brilliant chronicler, for example, stated that the stories that reported impossible friendships between animals should be banned. For example, I add, friendship between cats and rats or bears and tigers in Malaysia, the first by ecological impossibility and the second also by geographical impossibility, are not pedagogical and cause embarrassment in the "self-consciousness" of children. That is, if the pets are so "dear", "they speak", "why do I have to eat them?", implying their death?! This not to mention the farce of the century: the Santa Claus...

Should we inspire the imagination of children with lies and impossibilities or strengthen their identity with the hard truth. I have no answer, only opinion. My opinion is ... there are days and there are limits. A strange answer?! Maybe not. My experience as a parent is that children know and distinguish between what is pragmatic and imaginary friends from the world of the imagination of adults. The house cat and the Puss in Boots are different entities whose only similarity is both meow in the same way, except when the one with the boots makes his long serenades... The Duck, Pocoyo's friend, and the duck that appears in the rice are also different entities being that the one in the rice is very tasty, but not so funny.Then... and what is the limit? The limit, in my very humble opinion, is when the imaginary animals are replaced by the actual animals. The films in which animals are placed ridiculously moving their lips in imitation of real words, are not educational and mix the limits drawn by children. Attention, I like some excellent cinematography approaches, but I just think they should be presented to children after they have the ability to distinguish and find the amusement. Otherwise, they just get confused ...

What is clearly beyond the limit of tolerance is to use the world of imagination to stimulate consumerism and selfishness of children. This is devastating. Santa Claus, no thanks! For my children, Santa Claus will always be a farce since they were born. "Santa Claus does not exist" is one of the concepts that have rooted since they remember hearing words. So, they were never targeted by that ridiculous blackmail, in my opinion, "if you do not behave well, Santa Claus will not bring you a gift."

Everything I stated earlier is debatable. I admit. Every father and mother, better than anyone, know what educational approach serves their children. What is not debatable, however, is the poor service that some companies are doing to our children. The other day, I was quietly having lunch in one of those cafes that have the television on. Thus, while having lunch, I was listening and watching the news, exchanging views on the day to day, becoming more knowledgeable and increasing the citizenship that is expected of us all. So far, so good. Reinforcing, what we were seeing was what, potentially, all children on this country could be watching. At a certain point, on news of TVI, they began to show a woman being whipped. I could not believe it ... How can you ...? The news said that she had committed the crime of "using trousers". Still half puzzled, I asked the waiter to change the channel because I refused to be in the same space in which such images were broadcast. I think he did not notice at first because he had other things to do and so I had to be clearer. "I refuse to be dealing with images of a television channel that broadcasts this barbarous acts, like a woman being whipped." Using absolutely immoral acts, as the way some States treat women, to increase audiences, and additionally expose our children to those disorders is too intolerable for me and for the education we want for our children. Half a second later, the waiter changed the channel.

This Christmas, we could focus on children. I think that more than gifts, they will acknowledge the construction of an education based on truth and well-structured values. It's what I intend to do.


(esta página em Português)

Arquitectures

Foto: F Cardigos - SIARAM.

One of the themes with which I am often confronted is related to the design of interventions in areas of high environmental, cultural or social sensitivity. And the theme is not peaceful.

Evidently, the first consideration to take when designing a structural intervention is related to the specific target. That is, before the architectural solution, the first item is the objective. If the objective is to recover the assets, of course, the functionality will have to conform to the rules imposed by their own recovery. So, without thinking much about it, among the most common goals that we put on the list of requirements are: to perform any function, restore cultural heritage and enhance environmental assets.

For example, when was decided to build a visitor reception building at the entrance of the Furna do Enxofre in Graciosa island the number one objective was the function. That does not mean that the rest were not taken into account, but clearly, we were aware that by simply filling the space, the natural world could not be valued with the presence of a structure where previously there was none.

In the case of the Interpretation Centre of Lajido of Santa Luzia in Pico, the initial idea was to recover the cultural heritage. Secondly, there was the feature (housing an exhibition on the Vineyard Landscape and the Services of the Island Natural Park ) and the enhancement of the site. I think that it was accomplished, but it was not easy because, even tiny differences between the restored building and what it was before were subject of strong and important criticism.

Taking a case closer to us in Faial island. When it was decided to restore the old whale factory, we knew it would result in a project that would value the assets, but hardly would respect fully the structure that we know. In fact, this building, known for fortysomethings and thirtysomethings as "o tufo", a former nightclub, had previously been a whale-processing plant and drying fish plant. That is, it was not a building, but a succession of them and with very different functions. Therefore, the architect interpreted the building as it is now presented and, in conclusion, results in an intervention with the fusion of various styles. Some people like it and, as always, there are people who do not like.

Interestingly, this ambivalence in opinion about the new structures has a long history, certainly more than one hundred years. For example, when it was decided to build the Eiffel Tower in Paris, there were petitions and the structure had to be protected because it was feared a bomb attack. Today, is one of the most visited structures in the world and is a universal symbol of Paris and of humanity. Who would imagine in the distant year 1889?

There are other examples of controversy in architectural intervention, but, accoding to a friend of IST, the basic idea is that, as in music, good architecture survives. If the idea of putting a metal cage in the rear of Capelinhos Lighthouse is good, in a few years it will still be there. If it is not an appropriate concept, time will take it away.

However, the national and international awards and recognitions achieved by the Gruta das Torres, the Interpretation Centre Lajido Santa Luzia, the Interpretation Centre Capelinhos and the Interpretation Centre of Boqueirão are a positive omen for the future. Congratulations to the architects Ines and Miguel Vieira, Ana Laura Vasconcelos and Nuno Lopes. Their works already make us proud!

(esta página em Português)