دريچه ي باز قفس بر تازگي باغ ها سرانگيز است ؛

اما ، بال از جنبش رسته است ؛

وسوسه ي چمن ها بيهوده است ؛

ميان پرنده و پرواز ، فراموشي بال و پر است ؛

در چشم پرنده قطره ي بينايي است :

ساقه به بالا مي رود ؛ ميوه فرو مي افتد ؛ دگرگوني غمناك است ؛

نور ، آلودگي است ؛ نوسان ، آلودگي است ؛ رفتن ، آلودگي ؛

پرنده در خواب بال و پرش تنها مانده است ؛

چشمانش پرتو ميوه ها را مي راند ؛

سرودش بر زير و بم شاخه ها پيشي گرفته است ؛

سرشاري اش قفس را مي لرزاند ؛

نسيم ، هوا را مي شكند : دريچه ي قفس بي تاب است .

It's an old, old story; you could say it's antique. Architect designs major public building. Costs soar. Shock! Horror! The latest subject of this story is Zaha Hadid, the celebrated British architect currently at work on the design of the Aquatic Centre, the architectural showcase of the 2012 London Olympics.

Reports in yesterday's press seemed to confirm that Hadid's ambitious and rather beautiful building is going way over budget and that, by implication, the architect is to blame. It's the showy quality of her design, all those gracefully billowing curves that are at fault. If only she had knuckled down and designed something as dull as the Olympic Stadium itself, she would be off the hook, smelling not just of chlorine but of roses . . .

But, there are costs and costs. The figures quoted in the press reports are 'gross' costs as opposed to 'net' costs of the unjustly vilified project. 'Net' costs are those the actual structure of a building demands of a budget. In the case of the Aquatics Centre, these have risen by 20% as the design has been altered to meet the shifting demands of her client, the Olympic Delivery Authority. The 'gross' cost of the project includes any amount of consultants' and lawyers' fees, an enormous contingency for rising costs that have nothing directly to do with the architect. In the case of the Olympics' buildings, these are all prodigious.

Exactly the same very expensive cheap shots were fired at the Richard Rogers Partnership a few years ago during the design and construction of the National Assembly for Wales. As the 'gross' costs rose, nearly all of them due to political interference and ever rising consultants' fees, Rogers was blamed not just by ill-mannered and sometimes ill-informed local politicians but also by the press that still, for reasons I have never been able to fathom, likes to put the boot into any architect engaged on a major public building project. The 'net' cost of the Welsh Assembly building was a very reasonable one.

The trouble is that when costs rise in such a spectacular fashion, and especially when buck-passing politicians and faceless quangoes are involved, it's easy to lay the blame at the door of the architect. In this, the Olympics Delivery Authority and the politicians associated with it are behaving exactly as any of us have come to expect. And, yet, they should be thankful to Hadid and her spirited team. The Aquatics Centre is the architectural saving grace of the bad-tempered, secretive and ill-mannered Olympics project. It was her design, as Ken Livingstone said, that helped turn the Olympics London's way.

Hadid is too sensible to fight back against such claims; I'm doing it for her and her architects here, because it seems so wrong for politicians, bureaucrats and the press (sorry) to knock such a truly Olympian talent when this is so very much needed. She did not have this problem with her recent buildings in Germany, including the magnificent Phaeno Science Centre at Wolfsburg. But then she had decent, well-informed clients who knew how to support an architect and great architecture. In the architectural appreciation event, Britain's Olympics team wins no medals.

Like Christmas or a death in the extended family, the architectural awards season has come round yet again. There are some reasons why we shouldn't take them too seriously.

Whereas the Oscars arrive and depart with a brilliant flash in the pan, lingering just long enough to get you momentarily curious about Scientology, and the Turner Prize dwells more on the controversy of the shortlist than the eventual winner, architecture - in the form of the Royal Institute of British Architects - tries to have its cake and eat it.

The first stage of the process is to name the 92 buildings that, after months of deliberation, field trips and lunches, will go on to form the long-list for the short-list of the Stirling Prize (and several other awards), as decided by a collection of sponsors and minor celebrities. Mariella Frostrup is one.

OK - with me so far? The 92 buildings lucky enough to receive a fanfare via an excel spreadsheet, however, have already won an award: specifically a lead plaque that they can put in the lobby, and called, amazingly enough, a "RIBA Award". Does it mean the building is any good? Well, not really...

The problem with the RIBA Awards is that they're decided at a regional level. Which means that if you're building in London, where a lot of big and interesting stuff is built (just look at T5), you're significantly less likely to get an award than in Northern Ireland, where less stuff is built. And obviously, it looks bad if there's a region with no awards at all.

Then again, how many big buildings do you think get built in the UK each year? It's probably a lot fewer than you imagine. So if you've built something big, preferably for a prestigious client, it's somewhere other than London, and you've sent the RIBA a cheque - well, you've got about a one in four chance of calling yourself "an award-winning architect" next time someone asks, "So what do you do?".

Given these issues, the RIBA has done well to reignite the perennial architectural controversy. You know - the one Prince Charles likes to give his tuppence on. Yes - now they're also accused of being biased against traditionalists.

Are the awards flawed? Yes. Are the RIBA, as Robert Adam claims, "style fascists"? It seems unlikely, not least because Adam himself was a member of the RIBA council until 2005. Are they at all relevant? Who knows - but if architects are spouting off because they haven't won one this year, you have to assume they mean something...

در عصر يك روز ، مرد صخره نوردي در حال پايين آمدن از صخره هاي سنگي بودكه ناگهان سر طنابي كه به دور تخته سنگي محكم كرده بود و طرف ديگر آن را به دور كمرش بسته بود پاره شده و صخره نورد رها مي شود تا اينكه سر طناب به قسمتي از صخره گير مي كند و صخره نورد بين زمين و آسمان قرار مي گيرد .

ديگر شب شده بود و هر چه فرياد مي زد ،كسي آنجا نبود كه به او كمك كند . از خدا طلب كمك مي كند و خدا در پاسخ به درخواست او ، مي فرمايد : من كمكت مي كنم ولي قبل از آن بايد بدانم به من اعتماد كامل داري؟ صخره نورد مي گويد : بله ! اعتماد كامل دارم . خدا مي فرمايد : طناب را پاره كن . صخره نورد مي گويد : با اين كار كه مي افتم و مي ميرم ! در نهايت صخره نورد نااميد مي شود و اين كار را نمي كند و باز هم درخواست كمك از ديگران را مي كند ولي كسي را نمي يابد .

فرداي آن روز ، گروهي از مردم كه از آنجا مي گذشتند جنازه ي يخ زده ي مرد صخره نورد را ديدند كه با زمين فقط 10 سانتيمتر فاصله داشته است ... .

باز كن پنجره ها را كه نسيم

 روز ميلاد اقاقي ها را جشن مي گيرد و بهار

 روي هر شاخه

 كنار هر برگ

شمع روشن كرده است ؛

همه ي چلچله ها برگشتند و طراوت را فرياد زدند

‌ كوچه يكپارچه آواز شده است و درخت گيلاس

 هديه ي جشن اقاقي ها را گل به دامن كرده است ؛

باز كن پنجره ها را

 اي دوست !

 هيچ يادت هست كه زمين را عطشي وحشي بسوخت ؟

 برگ ها پژمردند ؟

 تشنگي با جگر خاك چه كرد ؟

هيچ يادت هست ؟

 توي تاريكي شب هاي بلند

 سيلي سرما با تاك چه كرد ؟

با سر و سينه ي گل هاي سپيد

 نيمه شب باد غضبناك چه كرد ؟

 هيچ يادت هست ؟

حاليا معجزه ي باران را باور كن

 و سخاوت را در چشم چمنزار ببين

 و محبت را در روح نسيم

 كه در اين كوچه ي تنگ

 با همين دست تهي

 روز ميلاد اقاقي ها را جشن مي گيرد !

خاك

 جان يافته است ؛

 تو چرا سنگ شدي ؟

 تو چرا اين همه دلتنگ شدي ؟

 باز كن پنجره ها را

 و بهاران را باور كن .

                                                              ** فريــدون مشــيري **

1 . من خردمندترين مردمانم ، زيرا يك چيز را مي دانم و آن اين كه هيچ چيز نمي دانم .

2 . در دوستي درنگ كن ، اما وقتي دوست شدي ثابت قدم و پايدار باش .

3 . فقط نهايت جهل يا نهايت هوشمندي مي تواند در مقابل تغيير مقاومت كند .

4 . دانش حقيقي ، اين كه همي بدانيم كه نادانيم .

5 . زندگي بدون تحقيق و جستار ارزش زيستن ندارد .

6 . به فكر آن ها نباش كه به تو وفادارند و تمام سخنان و اعمالت را مي ستايند ؛ به آن ها بينديش كه با مهر عيب هايت را سرزنش مي كنند .

7 . بي كاره ها فقط آن ها نيستند كه كاري انجام نمي دهند ؛ آنان نيز كه بايد به كار بهتري مشغول باشند اما نيستند ، بي كاره اند .

8 . بگذار آن كه مي خواهد دنيا را تكان دهد ، اول خودش حركتي بكند .

9 . نمي توانم چيزي به ديگران بياموزم ، فقط مي توانم وادارشان كنم كه بينديشند .

10 . هر طور هست ازدواج كن . اگر همسر خوبي داشته باشي ، نيكبخت مي شوي و اگر همسر بدي داشته باشي ، فيلسوف خواهي شد ... و اين براي هر مردي خوب است .

سال ها پيش مرد فروشنده اي كه از شهر بيرون رفته بود ، پس از بازگشت متوجه شد كه در غياب او خانه و فروشگاهش آتش گرفته و سوخته و بدين ترتيب تمام دارايي خود را از دست داده بود ، اما او چه كرد ؟ لبخند زد و چشمانش را به سوي آسمان گرفت و گفت : « خدايا ! مي خواهي كه اكنون چه كنم؟ » روز بعد لوحي را بر ويرانه هاي خانه و فروشگاهش آويخت كه روي آن نوشته بود :

             فروشگاهم سوخت !

              خانه ام سوخت !

               كالاهايم سوخت !

       اما ايمانم نسوخته است !

فردا شروع به كار خواهم كرد !

زني حدوداً 90 ساله را مي شناختم كه هرگز از هيچ چيز ناراحت نمي شد ؛ او هيچ گاه عصبي نبود ، پيوسته آرام و پر نشاط ، مانند آب هاي زلال بركه ها . از او پرسيدند چگونه مي تواند تحت همه ي شرايط آسوده خاطر باشد ؛ زن پاسخ داد : (( من هر شب كودكي مي شوم و قبل از خواب به گوشه اي ساكت و خاموش مي روم . در سكوت به خدا فكر مي كنم ،‌ همه ي نگراني ها ، تشويش ها و مسائل روز را يك يك بر دامان خدا مي گذارم . اگر از كاري كه كرده ام يا حرفي كه زده ام احساس گناه كنم ، اگر كسي را رنجانده باشم ، اين ها را در سكوت به خدا مي گويم و از او طلب بخشايش مي كنم و بخشايش او را مي پذيرم . اگر نگران چيزي باشم ، آن را به خدا مي سپارم و رهايش مي كنم . اگر احساس تنهايي كنم يا تصور كنم كه كسي مرا دوست ندارد ، همه را به خدا مي گويم و آن گاه خدا مرا در آغوش پر مهرش مي گيرد . هميشه وقتي كه به اين ترتيب همه چيز را رها مي كنم و به خدا مي سپارم ، آرامش عظيمي مي يابم و همه ي فشارها ، تشويش ها و عصبيت ها ناپديد مي شوند . ))